ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2018
Re-randomization increased recruitment and provided similar treatment estimates as parallel designs in trials of febrile neutropenia.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sample Size Calculations for Partially Clustered Trials.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Re-randomisation trials in multi-episode settings: Estimands and independence estimators.Statistical methods in medical research · 2022Article
- Independence estimators for re-randomisation trials in multi-episode settings: a simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Study design flaws and statistical challenges in evaluating fertility treatments.Reproduction & fertility · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRe-randomization trials allow patients to be re-enrolled for multiple treatment episodes. However, it remains uncertain to what extent re-randomization improves recruitment compared to parallel group designs or whether treatment estimates might be affected. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe evaluated trials included in a recent Cochrane review of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for patients with febrile neutropenia. We assessed the recruitment benefits of re-randomization trials; compared treatment effect estimates between re-randomization and parallel group designs; and assessed whether re-randomization led to higher rates of non-compliance and loss to follow-up in subsequent episodes.
resultsWe included 14 trials (5 re-randomization and 9 parallel group). The re-randomization trials recruited a median of 25% (range 16-66%) more episodes on average than they would have under a parallel-group design. Treatment effect estimates were similar between re-randomization and parallel group trials across all outcomes, though confidence intervals were wide. The re-randomization trials in this review reported no loss to follow-up and low rates of non-compliance (median 1.7%, range 0-8.9%).
conclusionsIn the setting of febrile neutropenia, re-randomization increased recruitment while providing similar estimates of treatment effect to parallel group trials, with minimal loss to follow-up or non-compliance. It appears to be safe and efficient alternative to parallel group designs in this setting.
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.