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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilizing patient perception of group treatment in exploring medication adherence, social support, and quality of life outcomes in people who inject drugs with hepatitis C.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2021Trial
- Preference-Informed Cluster Randomized Design for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- 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 mapReview
- Causal models and causal modelling in obesity: foundations, methods and evidence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Factors associated with choice of behavioural weight loss program by adults with obesity.Clinical obesity · 2023Article
- Equine-assisted services for individuals with substance use disorders: a scoping review.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2022Article
- Comparative effects of telephone versus in-office behavioral counseling to improve HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV in a rural setting.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Authors' reply: Letter to the Editor: 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 (SMMR, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 2019).Statistical methods in medical research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
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
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.