Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26910238›Full record

ReviewPloS one2016

Biomarker-Guided Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review.

Miranta Antoniou, Andrea L Jorgensen, Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing 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

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

  1. Long-term effects on clinical event, mental health, and related outcomes of CPAP for obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Operationalizing Alzheimer's disease trials in the era of targeted therapies.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. The roles of biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Characterization of the Biological Variability of the Angiome Biomarkers over Time in Healthy Participants.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Testing for a treatment effect in a selected subgroup.Statistical methods in medical research · 2024
    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

3 authors.

Miranta AntoniouMRC North West Hub For Trials Methodology Research, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Andrea L JorgensenMRC North West Hub For Trials Methodology Research, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-DonaMRC North West Hub For Trials Methodology Research, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonalized medicine is a growing area of research which aims to tailor the treatment given to a patient according to one or more personal characteristics. These characteristics can be demographic such as age or gender, or biological such as a genetic or other biomarker. Prior to utilizing a patient's biomarker information in clinical practice, robust testing in terms of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility is necessary. A number of clinical trial designs have been proposed for testing a biomarker's clinical utility, including Phase II and Phase III clinical trials which aim to test the effectiveness of a biomarker-guided approach to treatment; these designs can be broadly classified into adaptive and non-adaptive. While adaptive designs allow planned modifications based on accumulating information during a trial, non-adaptive designs are typically simpler but less flexible. METHODS AND

findingsWe have undertaken a comprehensive review of biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs proposed in the past decade. We have identified eight distinct biomarker-guided adaptive designs and nine variations from 107 studies. Substantial variability has been observed in terms of how trial designs are described and particularly in the terminology used by different authors. We have graphically displayed the current biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs and summarised the characteristics of each design.

conclusionsOur in-depth overview provides future researchers with clarity in definition, methodology and terminology for biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs.

Indexed as

BiomarkersClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHumansPrecision MedicineBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID26910238
PMCPMC4766245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.