Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33153304›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2020

The DURATIONS randomised trial design: Estimation targets, analysis methods and operating characteristics.

Matteo Quartagno, James R Carpenter, A Sarah Walker, Michelle Clements, 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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

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

5 authors.

Matteo QuartagnoMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4446-0730
James R CarpenterMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.
A Sarah WalkerMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.
Michelle ClementsMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.
Mahesh Kb ParmarMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDesigning trials to reduce treatment duration is important in several therapeutic areas, including tuberculosis and bacterial infections. We recently proposed a new randomised trial design to overcome some of the limitations of standard two-arm non-inferiority trials. This DURATIONS design involves randomising patients to a number of duration arms and modelling the so-called 'duration-response curve'. This article investigates the operating characteristics (type-1 and type-2 errors) of different statistical methods of drawing inference from the estimated curve.

methodsOur first estimation target is the shortest duration non-inferior to the control (maximum) duration within a specific risk difference margin. We compare different methods of estimating this quantity, including using model confidence bands, the delta method and bootstrap. We then explore the generalisability of results to estimation targets which focus on absolute event rates, risk ratio and gradient of the curve.

resultsWe show through simulations that, in most scenarios and for most of the estimation targets, using the bootstrap to estimate variability around the target duration leads to good results for DURATIONS design-appropriate quantities analogous to power and type-1 error. Using model confidence bands is not recommended, while the delta method leads to inflated type-1 error in some scenarios, particularly when the optimal duration is very close to one of the randomised durations.

conclusionsUsing the bootstrap to estimate the optimal duration in a DURATIONS design has good operating characteristics in a wide range of scenarios and can be used with confidence by researchers wishing to design a DURATIONS trial to reduce treatment duration. Uncertainty around several different targets can be estimated with this bootstrap approach.

Indexed as

Research DesignEquivalence Trials as TopicHumansModels, StatisticalOdds RatioRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicROC CurveSample SizeStatistics as TopicTime FactorsDurationsestimandestimation methodsoperating characteristics

Identifiers

PMID33153304
PMCPMC7851720

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.