Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23525452›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2013

Adaptive enrichment designs for clinical trials.

Noah Simon, Richard Simon

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Noah SimonDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Richard Simon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern medicine has graduated from broad spectrum treatments to targeted therapeutics. New drugs recognize the recently discovered heterogeneity of many diseases previously considered to be fairly homogeneous. These treatments attack specific genetic pathways which are only dysregulated in some smaller subset of patients with the disease. Often this subset is only rudimentarily understood until well into large-scale clinical trials. As such, standard practice has been to enroll a broad range of patients and run post hoc subset analysis to determine those who may particularly benefit. This unnecessarily exposes many patients to hazardous side effects, and may vastly decrease the efficiency of the trial (especially if only a small subset of patients benefit). In this manuscript, we propose a class of adaptive enrichment designs that allow the eligibility criteria of a trial to be adaptively updated during the trial, restricting entry to patients likely to benefit from the new treatment. We show that our designs both preserve the type 1 error, and in a variety of cases provide a substantial increase in power.

Indexed as

BiomarkersClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicComputer SimulationHumansResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeBiomarkersAdaptive clinical trialsBiomarkerCutpointEnrichment

Identifiers

PMID23525452
PMCPMC3769998

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.