Back

Statistical Analysis Plan for the Bedside Ultrasound Conducted in Kids with distal upper Limb fractures in the Emergency Department (BUCKLED) trial.

Jones, P. M.; Keijzers, G.; Byrnes, J.; Ware, R. S.; Snelling, P. J.

2022-06-14 emergency medicine
10.1101/2022.06.09.22276178 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe Bedside Ultrasound Conducted in Kids with distal upper Limb fractures in the Emergency Department (BUCKLED) trial is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study comparing point-of-care ultrasound to x-ray as the initial imaging modality in children with clinically non-angulated distal forearm injuries. ObjectiveThe purpose of this document is to minimise bias by defining and making publicly available our analysis approach prior to completing the study and reviewing or analysing the trial data. MethodsWe developed a statistical analysis plan (SAP) for reporting and analysing the BUCKLED trial including our approach to expected protocol deviations, withdrawals, missing data, and loss to follow up. Study methods are described using a previously published study protocol. Broad statistical analysis principles are outlined. Primary and secondary trial outcomes are described, along with appropriate methods for statistical comparison. ResultsThis report pre-specifies the SAP for the primary outcome of upper limb function at 4 weeks, using an intention-to-treat analysis with a hypothesis of non-inferiority. Results of a per-protocol analysis will also be reported. Subgroup analyses will include diagnostic category and age category and secondary outcomes will include cost, quality of life, satisfaction, pain, adverse events, rates of imaging, Emergency Department length of stay, treatment time and diagnostic accuracy. Methods of statistical comparison are outlined. ConclusionThis report describes the SAP for the BUCKLED trial, to minimise analysis bias and ensure transparency and internal validity for the findings of this randomised controlled trial.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.