Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31470107›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2019

A gate-keeping test for selecting adaptive interventions under general designs of sequential multiple assignment randomized trials.

Xiaobo Zhong, Bin Cheng, Min Qian, Ying Kuen Cheung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Xiaobo ZhongDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: xiaobo.zhong@mountsinai.org.
Bin ChengDepartment of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Min QianDepartment of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Ying Kuen CheungDepartment of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Artificial Intelligence in a Mobile Intervention for Depression (AIM)R01MH100482 · NIMH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI MOHR, DAVID CURTIS · 2013 to 2017
$3.1M
Novel Methods for Evaluation and Implementation of Behavioral Intervention Technologies for DepressionR01MH109496 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CHEUNG, KEN, MOHR, DAVID CURTIS · 2016 to 2019
$1.6M
Building Multistage Treatment Regimens for Depression after Acute Coronary SyndromeSyndromeR21MH108999 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI QIAN, MIN · 2016 to 2017
$440k
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH100482NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH109496NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH108999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article proposes a method to overcome limitations in current methods that address multiple comparisons of adaptive interventions embedded in sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) designs. Because a SMART typically consists of numerous adaptive interventions, inferential procedures based on pairwise comparisons of all may suffer a substantial loss in power after accounting for multiplicity. Meanwhile, traditional methods for multiplicity adjustments in comparing non-adaptive interventions require prior knowledge of correlation structures, which can be difficult to postulate when analyzing SMART data of adaptive interventions. To address the multiplicity issue, we propose a likelihood-based omnibus test that compares all adaptive interventions simultaneously, and apply it as a gate-keeping test for further decision making. Specifically, we consider a selection procedure that selects the adaptive intervention with the best observed outcome only when the proposed omnibus test reaches a pre-specified significance level, so as to control false positive selection. We derive the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic on which a sample size formula is based. Our simulation study confirms that the asymptotic approximation is accurate with a moderate sample size, and shows that the proposed test outperforms existing multiple comparison procedures in terms of statistical power. The simulation results also suggest that our selection procedure achieves a high probability of selecting a superior adaptive intervention. The application of the proposed method is illustrated with a real dataset from a depression management study.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLikelihood FunctionsModels, StatisticalRandom AllocationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeAdaptive interventionGate-keeping approachOmnibus testSample size calculationSequential multiple assignment randomized trial

Identifiers

PMID31470107
PMCPMC6815732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.