The Journal of Pediatrics
Volume 156, Issue 2 , Pages 202-208, February 2010

Accounting for Multiple Births in Neonatal and Perinatal Trials: Systematic Review and Case Study

  • Anna Maria Hibbs, MD, MSCE

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University and Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Cleveland, OH
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Dr Anna Maria Hibbs, Division of Neonatology, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Suite 3100, Cleveland, OH 44106.
  • ,
  • Dennis Black, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
  • ,
  • Lisa Palermo, MA

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
  • ,
  • Avital Cnaan, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Center for Clinical and Community Research, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC
  • ,
  • Xianqun Luan, MS

      Affiliations

    • Quality Data Services Inc, King of Prussia, PA
  • ,
  • William E. Truog, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, MO
  • ,
  • Michele C. Walsh, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University and Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Cleveland, OH
  • ,
  • Roberta A. Ballard, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

Received 20 November 2008; received in revised form 29 July 2009; accepted 26 August 2009. published online 07 December 2009.

Objectives

To determine the prevalence in the neonatal literature of statistical approaches accounting for the unique clustering patterns of multiple births and to explore the sensitivity of an actual trial to several analytic approaches to multiples.

Study design

A systematic review of recent perinatal trials assessed the prevalence of studies accounting for clustering of multiples. The Nitric Oxide to Prevent Chronic Lung Disease (NO CLD) trial served as a case study of the sensitivity of the outcome to several statistical strategies. We calculated odds ratios using nonclustered (logistic regression) and clustered (generalized estimating equations, multiple outputation) analyses.

Results

In the systematic review, most studies did not describe the random assignment of twins and did not account for clustering. Of those studies that did, exclusion of multiples and generalized estimating equations were the most common strategies. The NO CLD study included 84 infants with a sibling enrolled in the study. Multiples were more likely than singletons to be white and were born to older mothers (P < .01). Analyses that accounted for clustering were statistically significant; analyses assuming independence were not.

Conclusions

The statistical approach to multiples can influence the odds ratio and width of confidence intervals, thereby affecting the interpretation of a study outcome. A minority of perinatal studies address this issue.

NO CLD, Nitric Oxide to Prevent Chronic Lung Disease

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by National Institutes of Health grant K23-HD056299. The NO CLD trial has been used as a case study. Disclosures with regard to that study are as follows: Supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (U01-HL62514, P50-HL56401, P30-HD26979, P30-MRDDRC, and P30-HD26979) and the General Clinical Research Centers Program (M01-RR00240, M01-RR00084, M01-RR00425, M01-RR001271, M01-RR00064, and M01-RR00080). IKARIA (formerly INO Therapeutics) provided study gas and masked delivery systems for the primary NO CLD trial. M.C.W. and R.A.B. received support from IKARIA to fund completion of 24-month follow-up and data analysis. A.M.H. received reimbursement for travel to investigator meetings as part of these grants. A trainee in the Division of Neonatology, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, received grant support from IKARIA. IKARIA did not play any role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or reporting of the study.

PII: S0022-3476(09)00870-1

doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.08.049

The Journal of Pediatrics
Volume 156, Issue 2 , Pages 202-208, February 2010