Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23979056›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2013

Optimizing disease progression study designs for drug effect discrimination.

Sebastian Ueckert, Stefanie Hennig, Joakim Nyberg, Mats O Karlsson, Andrew C Hooker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Accelerating Monte Carlo power studies through parametric power estimation.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2016
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Sebastian UeckertPharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 591, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden, sebastian.ueckert@farmbio.uu.se.
Stefanie Hennig
Joakim Nyberg
Mats O Karlsson
Andrew C Hooker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Investigate the possibility to directly optimize a clinical trial design for statistical power to detect a drug effect and compare to optimal designs that focus on parameter precision. An improved statistic derived from the general formulation of the Wald approximation was used to predict the statistical power for given trial designs of a disease progression study. The predicted value was compared, together with the classical Wald statistic, to a type I error-corrected model-based power determined via clinical trial simulations. In a second step, a study design for maximal power was determined by directly maximizing the new statistic. The resulting power-optimal designs and their corresponding performance based on empirical power calculations were compared to designs focusing on parameter precision. Comparisons of empirically determined power and the newly developed statistic, showed excellent agreement across all scenarios investigated. This was in contrast to the classical Wald statistic, which consistently over-predicted the reference power with deviations of up to 90 %. Designs maximized using the proposed metric differed from traditional optimal designs and showed equal or up to 20 % higher power in the subsequent clinical trial simulations. Furthermore, the proposed method was used to minimize the number of individuals required to achieve 80 % power through a simultaneous optimization of study size and study design. The targeted power of 80 % was confirmed in subsequent simulation study. A new statistic was developed, allowing for the explicit optimization of a clinical trial design with respect to statistical power.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationDisease ProgressionDrug TherapyHumansModels, StatisticalPredictive Value of TestsResearch Design

Identifiers

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.