Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29422021›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Value of information methods to design a clinical trial in a small population to optimise a health economic utility function.

Michael Pearce, Siew Wan Hee, Jason Madan, Martin Posch, Simon Day, Frank Miller, Sarah Zohar, Nigel Stallard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

8 authors.

Michael PearceComplexity Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Siew Wan HeeStatistics and Epidemiology, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Jason MadanWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Martin PoschSection of Medical Statistics, CeMSIIS, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Simon DayClinical Trials Consulting and Training Limited, Buckingham, UK.
Frank MillerDepartment of Statistics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sarah ZoharINSERM, U1138, team 22, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Université Paris 5, Université Paris 6, Paris, France.
Nigel StallardStatistics and Epidemiology, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. n.stallard@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7781-1512

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost confirmatory randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) are designed with specified power, usually 80% or 90%, for a hypothesis test conducted at a given significance level, usually 2.5% for a one-sided test. Approval of the experimental treatment by regulatory agencies is then based on the result of such a significance test with other information to balance the risk of adverse events against the benefit of the treatment to future patients. In the setting of a rare disease, recruiting sufficient patients to achieve conventional error rates for clinically reasonable effect sizes may be infeasible, suggesting that the decision-making process should reflect the size of the target population.

methodsWe considered the use of a decision-theoretic value of information (VOI) method to obtain the optimal sample size and significance level for confirmatory RCTs in a range of settings. We assume the decision maker represents society. For simplicity we assume the primary endpoint to be normally distributed with unknown mean following some normal prior distribution representing information on the anticipated effectiveness of the therapy available before the trial. The method is illustrated by an application in an RCT in haemophilia A. We explicitly specify the utility in terms of improvement in primary outcome and compare this with the costs of treating patients, both financial and in terms of potential harm, during the trial and in the future.

resultsThe optimal sample size for the clinical trial decreases as the size of the population decreases. For non-zero cost of treating future patients, either monetary or in terms of potential harmful effects, stronger evidence is required for approval as the population size increases, though this is not the case if the costs of treating future patients are ignored.

conclusionsDecision-theoretic VOI methods offer a flexible approach with both type I error rate and power (or equivalently trial sample size) depending on the size of the future population for whom the treatment under investigation is intended. This might be particularly suitable for small populations when there is considerable information about the patient population.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionResearch DesignSample SizeCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDecision theoryHealth economicsPowerRare diseaseRegulatorType I errorValue of information

Identifiers

PMID29422021
PMCPMC5806391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.