ArticleContemporary clinical trials2013
Up-and-down designs for phase I clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized double-blinded study assessing the effect of different doses of transnasal dexmedetomidine on the median effective concentration of ropivacaine for a caudal block.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- The median effective analgesic concentration of ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- The Median Effective Analgesic Concentration of Ropivacaine in Sciatic Nerve Block Guided by Ultrasound After Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Double-Blind Up-Down Concentration-Finding Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- The association of the optimal bolus of dexmedetomidine with its favourable haemodynamic outcomes in adult surgical patients under general anaesthesia.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- On the relative efficiency of model-assisted designs: a conditional approach.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2019Article
- Overall success rate of a safe and efficacious drug: Results using six phase 1 designs, each followed by standard phase 2 and 3 designs.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- A placebo-controlled Bayesian dose finding design based on continuous reassessment method with application to stroke research.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2017Article
- Systematic comparison of the statistical operating characteristics of various Phase I oncology designs.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2017Article
- Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2016Article
- Bosutinib plus capecitabine for selected advanced solid tumours: results of a phase 1 dose-escalation study.British journal of cancer · 2014Article
- Challenges to implement minimum effective volume in regional anesthesia.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Various up-and-down designs have been proposed to improve the operating characteristics of the traditional "3 + 3" design, but they have been of limited use in practice. A major impediment to the adoption of the improved up-and-down designs is a lack of general guidance and a comprehensive assessment of the operating characteristics of these designs under practical clinical settings. To fill this gap, we review six up-and-down designs: the "3 + 3" design, accelerated titration design, biased coin design, k-in-a-row design, group up-and-down design and cumulative group up-and-down design. We conduct comprehensive simulation studies to evaluate their operating characteristics under various practical settings, and compare their performance to a theoretical optimal bound of nonparametric designs. The results show that the cumulative group up-and-down design has the best overall performance in terms of selecting the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), assigning patients to the MTD and patient safety. Its performance is generally close to the upper bound of nonparametric designs, but improvement seems possible in some cases.
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.