Back

Statistical Analysis Plan for Balanced versus Saline trialists living systematic review individual patient and aggregated data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (BEST-Living Study)

Zampieri, F. G.; Cavalcanti, A. B.; Di Tanna, G. L.; Damiani, L. P.; Hammond, N. E.; Machado, F. R.; Micallef, S.; Myburgh, J. A.; Ramanan, M.; Rice, T. W.; Semler, M. W.; Young, P. J.; Finfer, S.

2022-09-09 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2022.09.06.22279363 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeThe Balanced versus Saline Trialists (BEST) -Living Study is an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) from eligible trials that assessed the effects of using balanced solutions compared with saline in critically ill adults. We herein present the search strategies for the BEST-Living Study and provide details for future analysis and presentation. MethodsThe report will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data (PRISMA-IPD) recommendations. Search was performed in Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The primary endpoint will be hospital mortality, which will be analyzed using a Bayesian hierarchical model. Secondary endpoints include nurvival until longest follow-up available, use of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit and hospital length-of-stay. Details on the analysis plan are provided in this statistical analysis plan. ConclusionThe study will provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment using the best evidence available for the use of balanced solutions in critically ill patients. ApprovalsThe undersigned and all authors have reviewed this plan and approve it as final. They find it to be consistent with the requirements of the protocol as it applies to their respective areas. They also find it to be compliant with ICH-E9 principles and, in particular, confirm that this analysis plan was final prior to any analysis of the aggregated data. O_TBL View this table: org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@e311c5org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1a3bfd8org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1880a07org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@4a92faorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1f77a02_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_TBL C_TBL

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.