ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2010
Sample size calculations for evaluating treatment policies in multi-stage designs.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- SMARTAR: an R package for designing and analyzing Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials.PeerJ · 2021Article
- A gate-keeping test for selecting adaptive interventions under general designs of sequential multiple assignment randomized trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2019Article
- Design and Analysis Considerations for Comparing Dynamic Treatment Regimens with Binary Outcomes from Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials.Journal of applied statistics · 2018Article
- Design of sequentially randomized trials for testing adaptive treatment strategies.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
- Inference about the expected performance of a data-driven dynamic treatment regime.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2014Article
- SMART designs in cancer research: Past, present, and future.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2014Article
- Dynamic Treatment Regimes.Annual review of statistics and its application · 2014Article
- Efficient design and inference for multistage randomized trials of individualized treatment policies.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSequential multiple assignment randomized (SMAR) designs are used to evaluate treatment policies, also known as adaptive treatment strategies (ATS). The determination of SMAR sample sizes is challenging because of the sequential and adaptive nature of ATS, and the multi-stage randomized assignment used to evaluate them. PURPOSE: We derive sample size formulae appropriate for the nested structure of successive SMAR randomizations. This nesting gives rise to ATS that have overlapping data, and hence between-strategy covariance. We focus on the case when covariance is substantial enough to reduce sample size through improved inferential efficiency.
methodsOur design calculations draw upon two distinct methodologies for SMAR trials, using the equality of the optimal semi-parametric and Bayesian predictive estimators of standard error. This 'hybrid' approach produces a generalization of the t-test power calculation that is carried out in terms of effect size and regression quantities familiar to the trialist.
resultsSimulation studies support the reasonableness of underlying assumptions as well as the adequacy of the approximation to between-strategy covariance when it is substantial. Investigation of the sensitivity of formulae to misspecification shows that the greatest influence is due to changes in effect size, which is an a priori clinical judgment on the part of the trialist. LIMITATIONS: We have restricted simulation investigation to SMAR studies of two and three stages, although the methods are fully general in that they apply to 'K-stage' trials.
conclusionsPractical guidance is needed to allow the trialist to size a SMAR design using the derived methods. To this end, we define ATS to be 'distinct' when they differ by at least the (minimal) size of effect deemed to be clinically relevant. Simulation results suggest that the number of subjects needed to distinguish distinct strategies will be significantly reduced by adjustment for covariance only when small effects are of interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.