ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2018
Adding experimental arms to platform clinical trials: randomization procedures and interim analyses.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The clinical trials landscape for glioblastoma: is it adequate to develop new treatments?Neuro-oncology · 2018Pooled it
- Risk-adapted therapy guided by human papillomavirus (HPV) circulating tumor DNA in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (ReACT 1.0): an exploratory phase II trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Extension of Fisher's least significant difference method to multi-armed group-sequential response-adaptive designs.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025Article
- Predicting clinical trial success forFrontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Bayesian treatment screening and selection using subgroup-specific utilities of response and toxicity.Biometrics · 2023Article
- Inference in response-adaptive clinical trials when the enrolled population varies over time.Biometrics · 2023Article
- Statistical consideration when adding new arms to ongoing clinical trials: the potentials and the caveats.Trials · 2021Article
- The effects of releasing early results from ongoing clinical trials.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Including non-concurrent control patients in the analysis of platform trials: is it worth it?BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- To add or not to add a new treatment arm to a multiarm study: A decision-theoretic framework.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT): A Bayesian Adaptive Platform Trial to Develop Precision Medicines for Patients With Glioblastoma.JCO precision oncology · 2019Article
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
Multi-arm clinical trials use a single control arm to evaluate multiple experimental treatments. In most cases this feature makes multi-arm studies considerably more efficient than two-arm studies. A bottleneck for implementation of a multi-arm trial is the requirement that all experimental treatments have to be available at the enrollment of the first patient. New drugs are rarely at the same stage of development. These limitations motivate our study of statistical methods for adding new experimental arms after a clinical trial has started enrolling patients. We consider both balanced and outcome-adaptive randomization methods for experimental designs that allow investigators to add new arms, discuss their application in a tuberculosis trial, and evaluate the proposed designs using a set of realistic simulation scenarios. Our comparisons include two-arm studies, multi-arm studies, and the proposed class of designs in which new experimental arms are added to the trial at different time points.
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.