ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2019
Power behind the throne: A clinical trial simulation study evaluating the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressant trials.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Power behind the throne: A clinical trial simulation study evaluating the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressant trials.International journal of methods in psychiatric 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of controllable design factors on the power of antidepressants trials.
methodsUsing clinical trial simulation (CTS), we analyzed the combined impact on the power of trials of controllable design factors (sample size, outcome metrics, and disease severity at inclusion) and uncontrollable parameters (heterogeneity of diseases labeled "depression" in the source population and selective effects of drugs on items of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS], the most used outcome measurement tool). We elaborated 3,840 scenarios calibrated with real data, particularly the publication bias-corrected effect size.
resultsFor an effect size of 0.26, simulations revealed that in trials with ≤650 participants, power was less than 80%. Among the tested outcome metrics, the "remission" outcome provided more robustness for sample heterogeneity, whereas the continuous outcome "HDRS changes" provided more robustness when investigating drugs with a selective effect on the HDRS items. For the "remission" outcome, the power of trials increased with increasing HDRS threshold at inclusion but decreased with the outcomes "response" and "HDRS changes. Drugs with a selective effect on the HDRS items could not reach the same power as for the reference drug.
conclusionOur study allows for drawing recommendations to avoid underpowered trials of antidepressants.
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.