Skip to main content

Table 2 Principal analysis method reported for the primary binary outcome used in the 200 included studies

From: Current practice in analysing and reporting binary outcome data—a review of randomised controlled trial reports

 Reported in the main text (n = 200)Reported in the abstract (n = 200)
Chi-squared-style tests1127 (64%)13 (7%)
Logistic regression22 (11%)3 (2%)
Looking at confidence interval limits28 (4%)3 (2%)
Binomial regression7 (4%)1 (1%)
Others310 (5%)0 (0%)
Not reported24 (12%)180 (90%)
No analysis42 (1%)0 (0%)
  1. 1Including Fisher’s exact and Mantel-Haenszel test
  2. 2‘Looking at confidence intervals’ refers to where the assessment of non-inferiority was made by comparing the upper or lower limits of the confidence interval, as appropriate, to the non-interiority margin
  3. 3These include Poisson models, exact binomial test, tests for non-inferiority (including Farrington-Manning), and Newcombe’s method
  4. 4One study reported no events and therefore did not perform the planned principal analysis. One study described a composite primary endpoint, which was not reported in the paper; the components of the composite endpoint were reported separately