ArticleStatistics in medicine2021
Estimation of ascertainment bias and its effect on power in clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Relationship Between Cognitive Functioning and Symptoms of Depression, Anxiety, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults with a Traumatic Brain Injury: a Meta-Analysis.Neuropsychology review · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing Organoleptic Properties Simulation of a Placebo of Raw Food Material to a Chinese Medicine Oral Liquid FYTF-919.BioMed research international · 2026Trial
- Article
- Associations Among Sleep Duration, Sleep Quality, and Age-Related Ocular Diseases: Insights From Longitudinal and Mediation Analyses.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Escalating to medium- versus high-efficacy disease modifying therapy after low-efficacy treatment in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.Brain and behavior · 2024Article
- Understanding community level influences on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in England: new insights from comparison over time and space.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Effect of the STRIDE fall injury prevention intervention on falls, fall injuries, and health-related quality of life.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2022Article
- A case study of ascertainment bias for the primary outcome in the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While the gold standard for clinical trials is to blind all parties-participants, researchers, and evaluators-to treatment assignment, this is not always a possibility. When some or all of the above individuals know the treatment assignment, this leaves the study open to the introduction of postrandomization biases. In the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial, we were presented with the potential for the unblinded clinicians administering the treatment, as well as the individuals enrolled in the study, to introduce ascertainment bias into some but not all events comprising the primary outcome. In this article, we present ways to estimate the ascertainment bias for a time-to-event outcome, and discuss its impact on the overall power of a trial vs changing of the outcome definition to a more stringent unbiased definition that restricts attention to measurements less subject to potentially differential assessment. We found that for the majority of situations, it is better to revise the definition to a more stringent definition, as was done in STRIDE, even though fewer events may be observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.