Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31070807›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2019

Bayesian hierarchical EMAX model for dose-response in early phase efficacy clinical trials.

Byron J Gajewski, Caitlyn Meinzer, Scott M Berry, Gaylan L Rockswold, William G Barsan, Frederick K Korley, Renee' H Martin

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02407028 (Hyperbaric Oxygen Brain Injury Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT02407028 phase2recruitingnot on this map

Hyperbaric Oxygen Brain Injury Treatment (HOBIT) Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorGaylan RockswoldRan2018 to 2029Enrolled200ConditionsTraumatic Brain InjuryArmsHyperbaric oxygen (1.5 ATA, no NBH), Hyperbaric oxygen (2.0 ATA, no NBH), Hyperbaric oxygen (2.5 ATA, no NBH), Hyperbaric oxygen (1.5 ATA + NBH), Hyperbaric oxygen (2.0 ATA + NBH)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Byron J GajewskiDepartment of Biostatistics & Data Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.ORCID 0000-0001-7589-8247
Caitlyn MeinzerDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Scott M BerryDepartment of Biostatistics & Data Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
Gaylan L RockswoldHennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
William G BarsanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Frederick K KorleyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Renee' H MartinDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.

Funding

Hyperbaric Oxygen Brain Injury Treatment (HOBIT) Trial - CCCU01NS095926 · NINDS · HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Byron J. Gajewski, Frederick Kofi Korley · 2017 to 2026
$12.3M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS095926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A primary goal of a phase II dose-ranging trial is to identify a correct dose before moving forward to a phase III confirmatory trial. A correct dose is one that is actually better than control. A popular model in phase II is an independent model that puts no structure on the dose-response relationship. Unfortunately, the independent model does not efficiently use information from related doses. One very successful alternate model improves power using a pre-specified dose-response structure. Past research indicates that EMAX models are broadly successful and therefore attractive for designing dose-response trials. However, there may be instances of slight risk of nonmonotone trends that need to be addressed when planning a clinical trial design. We propose to add hierarchical parameters to the EMAX model. The added layer allows information about the treatment effect in one dose to be "borrowed" when estimating the treatment effect in another dose. This is referred to as the hierarchical EMAX model. Our paper compares three different models (independent, EMAX, and hierarchical EMAX) and two different design strategies. The first design considered is Bayesian with a fixed trial design, and it has a fixed schedule for randomization. The second design is Bayesian but adaptive, and it uses response adaptive randomization. In this article, a randomized trial of patients with severe traumatic brain injury is provided as a motivating example.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase II as TopicDose-Response Relationship, DrugHyperbaric OxygenationModels, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignBayes TheoremHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicProspective Studiesdosing design, Bayesian modelsEMAXhierarchical modelslogistic

Identifiers

PMID31070807
PMCPMC6606375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.