Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines

Background: Meta-research can involve manual retrieval and evaluation of research, which is resource intensive. Creation of high throughput methods (e.g., search heuristics, crowdsourcing) has improved feasibility of large meta-research questions, but possibly at the cost of accuracy. Objective: To evaluate the use of double sampling combined with multiple imputation (DS + MI) to address meta-research questions, using as an example adherence of PubMed entries to two simple consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines for titles and abstracts. Methods: For the DS large sample, we retrieved all PubMed entries satisfying the filters: RCT, human, abstract available, and English language (n = 322, 107). For the DS subsample, we randomly sampled 500 entries from the large sample. The large sample was evaluated with a lower rigor, higher throughput (RLOTHI) method using search heuristics, while the subsample was evaluated using a higher rigor, lower throughput (RHITLO) human rating method. Multiple imputation of the missing-completely at-random RHITLO data for the large sample was informed by: RHITLO data from the subsample; RLOTHI data from the large sample; whether a study was an RCT; and country and year of publication. Results: The RHITLO and RLOTHI methods in the subsample largely agreed (phi coefficients: title = 1.00, abstract = 0.92). Compliance with abstract and title criteria has increased over time, with non-US countries improving more rapidly. DS + MI logistic regression estimates were more precise than subsample estimates (e.g., 95% CI for change in title and abstract compliance by year: subsample RHITLO 1.050–1.174 vs. DS + MI 1.082–1.151). As evidence of improved accuracy, DS + MI coefficient estimates were closer to RHITLO than the large sample RLOTHI. Conclusion: Our results support our hypothesis that DS + MI would result in improved precision and accuracy. This method is flexible and may provide a practical way to examine large corpora of literature.

[1]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  D. Allison,et al.  Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? , 2012, International Journal of Obesity.

[3]  N. Black CONSORT , 1996, The Lancet.

[4]  D. Allison,et al.  Using Crowdsourcing to Evaluate Published Scientific Literature: Methods and Example , 2014, PloS one.

[5]  John W Graham,et al.  Planned missing data designs in psychological research. , 2006, Psychological methods.

[6]  Shigeaki Yamazaki,et al.  Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. , 2005, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[7]  A. Walker,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting in randomised controlled trials. , 2004, Journal of wound care.

[8]  David B. Allison,et al.  Power and money: Designing statistically powerful studies while minimizing financial costs. , 1997 .

[9]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Caroline Geck,et al.  The World Factbook , 2017 .

[11]  Craig K. Enders,et al.  An introduction to modern missing data analyses. , 2010, Journal of school psychology.

[12]  M. Gardner,et al.  More informative abstracts revisited. , 1990, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[13]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[14]  Goran Nenadic,et al.  Mining characteristics of epidemiological studies from Medline: a case study in obesity , 2014, J. Biomed. Semant..

[15]  N. Pandis,et al.  Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology. , 2014, The journal of evidence-based dental practice.