ArticleStatistics in medicine2017
A model-based conditional power assessment for decision making in randomized controlled trial studies.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Conditional power based on summary statistic by comparing outcomes (such as the sample mean) directly between 2 groups is a convenient tool for decision making in randomized controlled trial studies. In this paper, we extend the traditional summary statistic-based conditional power with a general model-based assessment strategy, where the test statistic is based on a regression model. Asymptotic relationships between parameter estimates based on the observed interim data and final unobserved data are established, from which we develop an analytic model-based conditional power assessment for both Gaussian and non-Gaussian data. The model-based strategy is not only flexible in handling baseline covariates and more powerful in detecting the treatment effects compared with the conventional method but also more robust in controlling the overall type I error under certain missing data mechanisms. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated by extensive simulation studies and illustrated with an application to a clinical study.
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.