A randomised controlled trial comparing palate surgery at 6 months versus 12 months of age (the TOPS trial): a statistical analysis plan

Elizabeth J Conroy, Rachael Cooper, William Shaw, Christina Persson, Elisabeth Willadsen, Kevin J Munro, Paula R Williamson, Gunvor Semb, Tanya Walsh, Carrol Gamble, TOPS trial management group, Elizabeth J Conroy, Rachael Cooper, William Shaw, Christina Persson, Elisabeth Willadsen, Kevin J Munro, Paula R Williamson, Gunvor Semb, Tanya Walsh, Carrol Gamble, TOPS trial management group

Abstract

Background: Cleft palate is among the most common birth abnormalities. The success of primary surgery in the early months of life is crucial for successful feeding, hearing, dental development, and facial growth. Over recent decades, age at palatal surgery in infancy has reduced. The Timing Of Primary Surgery for cleft palate (TOPS) trial aims to determine whether, in infants with cleft palate, it is better to perform primary surgery at age 6 or 12 months (corrected for gestational age).

Methods/design: The TOPS trial is an international, two-arm, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. The primary outcome is insufficient velopharyngeal function at 5 years of age. Secondary outcomes, measured at 12 months, 3 years, and 5 years of age, include measures of speech development, safety of the procedure, hearing level, middle ear function, dentofacial development, and growth. The analysis approaches for primary and secondary outcomes are described here, as are the descriptive statistics which will be reported. The TOPS protocol has been published previously.

Discussion: This paper provides details of the planned statistical analyses for the TOPS trial and will reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias and data-driven results.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00993551 . Registered on 9 October 2009.

Keywords: Complex intervention; Palatal surgery; Randomised controlled trial; Sommerlad technique; Statistical analysis plan; Surgical intervention; Trial analysis; Trial design; Unilateral cleft palate; Velopharyngeal function.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no competing interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram for participants in trial up to final assessment

References

    1. Shaw W, Semb G, Lohmander A, et al. Timing Of Primary Surgery for cleft palate (TOPS): protocol for a randomised trial of palate surgery at 6 months versus 12 months of age. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e029780. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029780.
    1. Peterson-Falzone S. Optimal age for palatoplasty to faclitate normal speech development: what is the evidence? In: Berkowitz S, editor. Cleft lip and palate. Berlin: Springer; 2006. pp. 691–700.
    1. Hellquist R, Ponten B, Skoog T. The influence of cleft length and palatoplasty on the dental arch and the deciduous occlusion in cases of clefts of the secondary palate. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978;12(1):45–54. doi: 10.3109/02844317809010479.
    1. Friede H, Persson EC, Lilja J, et al. Maxillary dental arch and occlusion in patients with repaired clefts of the secondary palate. Influence of push back palatal surgery. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg / Nordisk plastikkirurgisk forening [and] Nordisk klubb for handkirurgi. 1993;27(4):297–305. doi: 10.1080/02844311.1993.12005644.
    1. Nystrom M, Ranta R. Effect of timing and method of closure of isolated cleft palate on development of dental arches from 3 to 6 years of age. Eur J Orthod. 1994;16(5):377–383. doi: 10.1093/ejo/16.5.377.
    1. Friede H, Enocson L, Moller M, et al. Maxillary dental arch and occlusion in repaired clefts of the secondary palate: influence of surgical closure with minimal denudation of bone. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg / Nordisk plastikkirurgisk forening [and] Nordisk klubb for handkirurgi. 2000;34(3):213–218. doi: 10.1080/02844310050159783.
    1. Dorf DS, Curtin JW. Early cleft palate repair and speech outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;70(1):74–81. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198207000-00015.
    1. Chapman KL, Hardin-Jones MA, Goldstein JA, et al. Timing of palatal surgery and speech outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(3):297–308. doi: 10.1597/06-244.
    1. Chapman KL, Willadsen E. Cleft palate speech: assessment and intervention. 2011. The development of speech in children with cleft palate; pp. 23–40.
    1. Jones DL. Timing of palatoplasty and speech. In: Comprehensive Cleft Care: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. 2016:521–6. .
    1. Gamble C, Krishan A, Stocken D, et al. Guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans in clinical trials. JAMA. 2017;318(23):2337–2343. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.18556.
    1. Sommerlad BC. A technique for cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(6):1542–1548. doi: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000085599.84458.D2.
    1. Lohmander A, Persson C, Willadsen E, et al. Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 4. Speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - velopharyngeal competency and hypernasality. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(1):27–37. doi: 10.1080/2000656X.2016.1254645.
    1. British Society of Audiology . Recommended Procedure: Pure-tone air conduction and bone-conduction threshold audiometry with and without masking. 2011.
    1. Bearn D, Sandy JR, Shaw WC. Photogrammetric assessment of the soft tissue profile in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39:597–603. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0597_paotst_2.0.co_2.
    1. Martin CB, Ma X, McIntyre GT, et al. The validity and reliability of an automated method of scoring dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate using the modified Huddart-Bodenham scoring system. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38:353–358. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw031.
    1. Gray D, Mossey PA. Evaluation of a modified Huddart/Bodenham system for assessment of maxillary constriction. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:507–511. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji019.
    1. Lohmander A, Willadsen E, Persson C, et al. Methodology for speech assessment in the Scandcleft project—an international randomized clinical trials on palatal surgery: experiences from a pilot study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46:347–362. doi: 10.1597/08-039.1.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group CONSORT 2010 Statement updated guildelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332.
    1. Morris JA, Gardner MJ. Calculating confidence intervals for relative risks (odds ratios) and standardised ratios and rates. Stat Med. 1988;296:1313–1316.
    1. Kahan BC, Morris TP. Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:58. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-58.
    1. Kahan BC, Morris TP. Improper analysis of trials randomised using stratified blocks or minimisation. Stat Med. 2012;31:328–340. doi: 10.1002/sim.4431.
    1. Hernandez AV, Steyerberg EW, Habbema JD. Covariate adjustment in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirements. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:454–460. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.014.
    1. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med. 2002;21:2917–2930. doi: 10.1002/sim.1296.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–160. doi: 10.1191/096228099673819272.
    1. Finfer S, Bellomo R. Why publish statistical analysis plans. Crit Care Resusc. 2009;11(1):5–6.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere