ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2016
Model-Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conditional distribution modeling as an alternative method for covariates simulation: Comparison with joint multivariate normal and bootstrap techniques.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2021Article
- Advancing the Field of Pediatric Exercise Oncology: Research and Innovation Needs.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- Combining Model-Based Clinical Trial Simulation, Pharmacoeconomics, and Value of Information to Optimize Trial Design.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 I: Frequentist 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
This study presents a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic based clinical trial simulation framework for evaluating the performance of a fixed-sample Bayesian design (BD) and two alternative Bayesian sequential designs (BSDs) (i.e., a non-hierarchical (NON-H) and a semi-hierarchical (SEMI-H) one). Prior information was elicited from adult trials and weighted based on the expected similarity of response to treatment between the pediatric and adult populations. Study designs were evaluated in terms of: type I and II errors, sample size per arm (SS), trial duration (TD), and estimate precision. No substantial differences were observed between NON-H and SEMI-H. BSDs require, on average, smaller SS and TD compared to the BD, which, on the other hand, guarantees higher estimate precision. When large differences between children and adults are expected, BSDs can return very large SS. Bayesian approaches appear to outperform their frequentist counterparts in the design of pediatric trials even when little weight is given to prior information from adults.
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.