Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29121828›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2019

Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect.

Moonseong Heo, Paul Meissner, Alain H Litwin, Julia H Arnsten, M Diane McKee, Alison Karasz, Paula McKinley, Colin D Rehm, Earle C Chambers, Ming-Chin Yeh and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Long-term health outcomes for patients with obstructive sleep apnea: placing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report in context-a multisociety commentary.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Article
  4. Design, analysis, and interpretation of treatment response heterogeneity in personalized nutrition and obesity treatment research.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2023 · on this map
    Review
  5. Causal models and causal modelling in obesity: foundations, methods and evidence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors.

Moonseong Heo1 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7711-1209
Paul Meissner2 Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Alain H Litwin3 Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Julia H Arnsten3 Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
M Diane McKee2 Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Alison Karasz2 Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Paula McKinley3 Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Colin D Rehm1 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Earle C Chambers2 Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Ming-Chin Yeh5 Nutrition Program, Hunter College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Judith Wylie-Rosett1 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.

Funding

CTSA Administrative Supplement for Informatics Core: A novel AI/ML system to predict respiratory failure and ARDS in Covid-19 patientsUL1TR002556 · NCATS · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI KELLER, MARLA J, KIM, MIMI Y · 2018 to 2022
$26.7M
Core-010UL1TR001073 · NCATS · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI KELLER, MARLA J, SHAMOON, HARRY · 2013 to 2017
$21.3M
New York Regional Center for Diabetes Translation Research - Translational Intervention Methodology CoreP30DK111022 · NIDDK · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI JEFFREY GONZALEZ · 2016 to 2026
$7.8M
Intensive Models of HCV Care for Injection Drug UsersR01DA034086 · NIDA · CLEMSON UNIVERSITY · PI LITWIN, ALAIN HARRIS · 2012 to 2016
$3.7M
Urban public housing, neighborhood, and cardiovascular disease in primary careK01HL125466 · NHLBI · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI CHAMBERS, EARLE C · 2015 to 2019
$775k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001073NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002556NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL125466NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA034086NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK111022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research trials in real-world settings may require participants to choose between preferred intervention options. A randomized clinical trial with parallel experimental and control arms is straightforward and regarded as a gold standard design, but by design it forces and anticipates the participants to comply with a randomly assigned intervention regardless of their preference. Therefore, the randomized clinical trial may impose impractical limitations when planning comparative effectiveness research trials. To accommodate participants' preference if they are expressed, and to maintain randomization, we propose an alternative design that allows participants' preference after randomization, which we call a "preference option randomized design (PORD)". In contrast to other preference designs, which ask whether or not participants consent to the assigned intervention after randomization, the crucial feature of preference option randomized design is its unique informed consent process before randomization. Specifically, the preference option randomized design consent process informs participants that they can opt out and switch to the other intervention only if after randomization they actively express the desire to do so. Participants who do not independently express explicit alternate preference or assent to the randomly assigned intervention are considered to not have an alternate preference. In sum, preference option randomized design intends to maximize retention, minimize possibility of forced assignment for any participants, and to maintain randomization by allowing participants with no or equal preference to represent random assignments. This design scheme enables to define five effects that are interconnected with each other through common design parameters-comparative, preference, selection, intent-to-treat, and overall/as-treated-to collectively guide decision making between interventions. Statistical power functions for testing all these effects are derived, and simulations verified the validity of the power functions under normal and binomial distributions.

Indexed as

Research DesignComparative Effectiveness ResearchDecision MakingHumansInformed ConsentIntention to Treat AnalysisRandomized Controlled Trials as Topiccomparative effectiveness researchdecision makingpowerPreferencerandomization

Identifiers

PMID29121828
PMCPMC6834113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.