Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32063029›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2020

Adding new experimental arms to randomised clinical trials: Impact on error rates.

Babak Choodari-Oskooei, Daniel J Bratton, Melissa R Gannon, Angela M Meade, Matthew R Sydes, Mahesh Kb Parmar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Babak Choodari-OskooeiMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7679-5899
Daniel J BrattonClinical Statistics, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK.
Melissa R GannonDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Angela M MeadeMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Matthew R SydesMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9323-1371
Mahesh Kb ParmarMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExperimental treatments pass through various stages of development. If a treatment passes through early-phase experiments, the investigators may want to assess it in a late-phase randomised controlled trial. An efficient way to do this is adding it as a new research arm to an ongoing trial while the existing research arms continue, a so-called multi-arm platform trial. The familywise type I error rate is often a key quantity of interest in any multi-arm platform trial. We set out to clarify how it should be calculated when new arms are added to a trial some time after it has started.

methodsWe show how the familywise type I error rate, any-pair and all-pairs powers can be calculated when a new arm is added to a platform trial. We extend the Dunnett probability and derive analytical formulae for the correlation between the test statistics of the existing pairwise comparison and that of the newly added arm. We also verify our analytical derivation via simulations.

resultsOur results indicate that the familywise type I error rate depends on the shared control arm information (i.e. individuals in continuous and binary outcomes and primary outcome events in time-to-event outcomes) from the common control arm patients and the allocation ratio. The familywise type I error rate is driven more by the number of pairwise comparisons and the corresponding (pairwise) type I error rates than by the timing of the addition of the new arms. The familywise type I error rate can be estimated using Šidák's correction if the correlation between the test statistics of pairwise comparisons is less than 0.30.

conclusionsThe findings we present in this article can be used to design trials with pre-planned deferred arms or to add new pairwise comparisons within an ongoing platform trial where control of the pairwise error rate or familywise type I error rate (for a subset of pairwise comparisons) is required.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdaptive Clinical Trials as TopicAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeScientific Experimental ErrorTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic Agentsadaptive trial designsfamilywise type I error rateMAMSmulti-arm multi-stagepairwise error ratePlatform trialsSTAMPEDE trialsurvival time

Identifiers

PMID32063029
PMCPMC7263043

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.