Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18375650›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2008

An examination of effect estimation in factorial and standardly-tailored designs.

Heather G Allore, Terrence E Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Comorbidity in older adults with cancer.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2016
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Heather G AlloreDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. Heather.allore@yale.edu
Terrence E Murphy

Funding

Yale Study Support Suite (YES3): Dashboard and Web Portal Software Supporting Research Workflow through integrated, customizable REDCap External ModulesP30AG021342 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Denise Esserman · 2002 to 2026
$37.9M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021342NIA NIH HHS P30AG21342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany clinical trials are designed to test an intervention arm against a control arm wherein all subjects are equally eligible for all interventional components. Factorial designs have extended this to test multiple intervention components and their interactions. A newer design referred to as a ;standardly-tailored' design, is a multicomponent interventional trial that applies individual interventional components to modify risk factors identified a priori and tests whether health outcomes differ between treatment arms. Standardly-tailored designs do not require that all subjects be eligible for every interventional component. Although standardly-tailored designs yield an estimate for the net effect of the multicomponent intervention, it has not yet been shown if they permit separate, unbiased estimation of individual component effects. The ability to estimate the most potent interventional components has direct bearing on conducting second stage translational research. PURPOSE: We present statistical issues related to the estimation of individual component effects in trials of geriatric conditions using factorial and standardly-tailored designs. The medical community is interested in second stage translational research involving the transfer of results from a randomized clinical trial to a community setting. Before such research is undertaken, main effects and synergistic and or antagonistic interactions between them should be identified. Knowledge of the relative strength and direction of the effects of the individual components and their interactions facilitates the successful transfer of clinically significant findings and may potentially reduce the number of interventional components needed. Therefore the current inability of the standardly-tailored design to provide unbiased estimates of individual interventional components is a serious limitation in their applicability to second stage translational research.

methodsWe discuss estimation of individual component effects from the family of factorial designs and this limitation for standardly-tailored designs. We use the phrase ;factorial designs' to describe full-factorial designs and their derivatives including the fractional factorial, partial factorial, incomplete factorial and modified reciprocal designs. We suggest two potential directions for designing multicomponent interventions to facilitate unbiased estimates of individual interventional components.

resultsFull factorial designs and their variants are the most common multicomponent trial design described in the literature and differ meaningfully from standardly-tailored designs. Factorial and standardly-tailored designs result in similar estimates of net effect with different levels of precision. Unbiased estimation of individual component effects from a standardly-tailored design will require new methodology. LIMITATIONS: Although clinically relevant in geriatrics, previous applications of standardly-tailored designs have not provided unbiased estimates of the effects of individual interventional components. DISCUSSION: Future directions to estimate individual component effects from standardly-tailored designs include applying D-optimal designs and creating independent linear combinations of risk factors analogous to factor analysis.

conclusionMethods are needed to extract unbiased estimates of the effects of individual interventional components from standardly-tailored designs.

Indexed as

Research DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID18375650
PMCPMC3477845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.