Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33304950›Full record

ArticleData in brief2020

Using preliminary data and prospective power analyses for mid-stream revision of projected group and subgroup sizes in pragmatic patient-centered outcomes research.

Elizabeth A Tolley, Satya Surbhi, James E Bailey

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Data in brief, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02957513 (Improving Self-Care Decisions of Medically Underserved African-Americans With Uncontrolled Diabetes), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

NCT02957513 naunknown statusnot on this map

Improving Self-Care Decisions of Medically Underserved African-Americans With Uncontrolled Diabetes: Effectiveness of Patient-Driven Text Messaging Versus Health Coaching

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of TennesseeRan2016 to 2020Enrolled646ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Chronic DiseaseArmsText Messaging (TM), Health Coaching (HC), Enhanced Usual Care (EC)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Elizabeth A TolleyCenter for Health System Improvement, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN USA.
Satya SurbhiCenter for Health System Improvement, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN USA.
James E BaileyCenter for Health System Improvement, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pragmatic clinical trials are commonly used in patient-centered outcomes research to assess heterogeneity of treatment effects. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) methodology standards for assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects are extremely rigorous, but their implementation in real-world settings can be difficult. Predicting recruitment effectiveness and subgroup characteristics is often challenging and may require mid-stream revision of projected group and subgroup sizes. Yet, little real-world data are available to demonstrate methodologically valid approaches to address situations where such revisions are necessary. These data were used for mid-stream revision of group and subgroup sizes in the Management of Diabetes in Everyday Life (MODEL) clinical trial. The planned number of randomized participants retained over the one-year study period was reduced from 800 to 581 due to recruitment difficulties among potential participants residing in rural areas. Prospective power analyses are based on the revised target of 581 participants retained and the proportions of 167 participants with various key baseline characteristics, who had been randomized in MODEL by January 2018, as reported to the Patient Center Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and the MODEL Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. Power calculations are based on two-sided t-tests with type-I error rates of 0.05 and the assumption that effect sizes will range from small (standardized difference = 0.36) to medium (= 0.50). The primary outcome variables are how many days in the previous week participants 1) ate healthy meals, 2) participated in at least 30 minutes of physical activity, and 3) took medications as prescribed. The POWER procedure of SAS 9.4 was used for all analyses. These data, along with the approach, can assist statisticians as they plan future pragmatic clinical trials evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effects. These data can help inform investigators, conducting patient-centered outcomes research, as they define subgroups for either confirmatory analyses for testing heterogeneity of treatment effects or for exploratory analyses where estimation of confidence bounds may be useful for generating future hypotheses. (This work was supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project Program Award (SC15-1503-28336), www.ClinicalTrials.gov and Identifier: NCT02957513 [1].).

Indexed as

Epidemiologic research designPragmatic clinical trialSample sizeStatistical power

Identifiers

PMID33304950
PMCPMC7708786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.