ArticleStatistics in medicine2015
Modeling and validating Bayesian accrual models on clinical data and simulations using adaptive priors.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Prediction and monitoring of accrual and rate of underrepresented biomedical research group using bayesian methods.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- A Bayesian model with seasonal effects for predicting accrual in clinical trials: Application to HOBIT and BOOST-3 trials for severe traumatic brain injury.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Article
- A non-parametric approach to predict the recruitment for randomized clinical trials: an example in elderly inpatient settings.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Using Bayesian hierarchical modeling for performance evaluation of clinical trial accrual for a cancer center.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Interim recruitment prediction for multi-center clinical trials.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Bayesian accrual modeling and prediction in multicenter clinical trials with varying center activation times.Pharmaceutical statistics · 2020Article
- Article
- Improving the efficiency of clinical trials by standardizing processes for Investigator Initiated Trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2020Article
- Accrual Prediction Program: A web-based clinical trials tool for monitoring and predicting accrual for early-phase cancer studies.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2019Article
- A novel evaluation of optimality for randomized controlled trials.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2017Article
- Bayesian accrual prediction for interim review of clinical studies: open source R package and smartphone application.Trials · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Slow recruitment in clinical trials leads to increased costs and resource utilization, which includes both the clinic staff and patient volunteers. Careful planning and monitoring of the accrual process can prevent the unnecessary loss of these resources. We propose two hierarchical extensions to the existing Bayesian constant accrual model: the accelerated prior and the hedging prior. The new proposed priors are able to adaptively utilize the researcher's previous experience and current accrual data to produce the estimation of trial completion time. The performance of these models, including prediction precision, coverage probability, and correct decision-making ability, is evaluated using actual studies from our cancer center and simulation. The results showed that a constant accrual model with strongly informative priors is very accurate when accrual is on target or slightly off, producing smaller mean squared error, high percentage of coverage, and a high number of correct decisions as to whether or not continue the trial, but it is strongly biased when off target. Flat or weakly informative priors provide protection against an off target prior but are less efficient when the accrual is on target. The accelerated prior performs similar to a strong prior. The hedging prior performs much like the weak priors when the accrual is extremely off target but closer to the strong priors when the accrual is on target or only slightly off target. We suggest improvements in these models and propose new models for future research.
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.