» Articles » PMID: 7819982

The Miracle of DICE Therapy for Acute Stroke: Fact or Fictional Product of Subgroup Analysis?

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 1994 Dec 24
PMID 7819982
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To determine whether inappropriate subgroup analysis together with chance could change the conclusion of a systematic review of several randomised trials of an ineffective treatment.

Design: 44 randomised controlled trials of DICE therapy for stroke were performed (simulated by rolling different coloured dice; two trials per investigator). Each roll of the dice yielded the outcome (death or survival) for that "patient." Publication bias was also simulated. The results were combined in a systematic review.

Setting: Edinburgh.

Main Outcome Measure: Mortality.

Results: The "hypothesis generating" trial suggested that DICE therapy provided complete protection against death from acute stroke. However, analysis of all the trials suggested a reduction of only 11% (SD 11) in the odds of death. A predefined subgroup analysis by colour of dice suggested that red dice therapy increased the odds by 9% (22). If the analysis excluded red dice trials and those of poor methodological quality the odds decreased by 22% (13, 2P = 0.09). Analysis of "published" trials showed a decrease of 23% (13, 2P = 0.07) while analysis of only those in which the trialist had become familiar with the intervention showed a decrease of 39% (17, 2P = 0.02).

Conclusion: The early benefits of DICE therapy were not confirmed by subsequent trials. A plausible (but inappropriate) subset analysis of the effects of treatment led to the qualitatively different conclusion that DICE therapy reduced mortality, whereas in truth it was ineffective. Chance influences the outcome of clinical trials and systematic reviews of trials much more than many investigators realise, and its effects may lead to incorrect conclusions about the benefits of treatment.

Citing Articles

The true meaning of DICE: don't ignore chance effects.

Clarke M J R Soc Med. 2021; 114(12):575-577.

PMID: 34935558 PMC: 8725040. DOI: 10.1177/01410768211064102.


Changes to aspects of ongoing randomised controlled trials with fixed designs.

Coskinas X, Simes J, Schou M, Martin A Trials. 2020; 21(1):457.

PMID: 32493444 PMC: 7268339. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04374-3.


Calcium antagonists for acute ischemic stroke.

Zhang J, Liu J, Li D, Zhang C, Liu M Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 2:CD001928.

PMID: 30758052 PMC: 6373522. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001928.pub3.


Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults.

Bloomfield R, Noble D, Sudlow A Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (11):CD008095.

PMID: 26561745 PMC: 6464920. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008095.pub2.


Topical NSAIDs for acute musculoskeletal pain in adults.

Derry S, Moore R, Gaskell H, McIntyre M, Wiffen P Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (6):CD007402.

PMID: 26068955 PMC: 6426435. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007402.pub3.


References
1.
Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R . Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials?. Stat Med. 1984; 3(4):409-22. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780030421. View

2.
Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R, Furberg C, Stampfer M, Goldhaber S . Intravenous and intracoronary fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: overview of results on mortality, reinfarction and side-effects from 33 randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 1985; 6(7):556-85. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a061905. View

3.
Simes R . Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986; 4(10):1529-41. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.10.1529. View

4.
Peto R . Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials?. Stat Med. 1987; 6(3):233-44. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780060306. View

5.
Peto R, Collins R, Gray R . Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993; 703:314-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26369.x. View