ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2016
Model-Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part I: Frequentist Approaches.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Ecopipam for Tourette Syndrome: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA neurology · 2026Trial
- Conditional distribution modeling as an alternative method for covariates simulation: Comparison with joint multivariate normal and bootstrap techniques.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2021Article
- Useful pharmacodynamic endpoints in children: selection, measurement, and next steps.Pediatric research · 2018Review
- Model-Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alternative designs can increase the feasibility of pediatric trials when compared to classical parallel designs (PaD). In this work we present a model-based approach based on clinical trial simulations for the comparison of PaD with the alternative sequential, crossover, and randomized withdrawal (RWD) designs. Study designs were evaluated in terms of: type I and II errors, sample size per arm (SS), trial duration (TD), treatment exposures, and parameter estimate precision (EP). The crossover requires the lowest SS and TD, although it implies higher placebo and no treatment exposures. RWD maximizes exposure to active treatment while minimizing that to placebo, but requires the largest SS. SS of sequential designs can sometimes be smaller than the crossover one, although with poorer EP. This pharmacometric framework allows a multiscale comparison of alternative study designs that can be used for design selection in future pediatric trials.
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.