Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33474798›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical statistics2021

A novel equivalence probability weighted power prior for using historical control data in an adaptive clinical trial design: A comparison to standard methods.

Maxine Bennett, Simon White, Nicky Best, Adrian Mander

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical statistics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Being Bayesian in the 2020s: opportunities and challenges in the practice of modern applied Bayesian statistics.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Maxine BennettMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6298-519X
Simon WhiteMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8642-7037
Nicky BestGlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4120-9727
Adrian ManderMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25350Department of HealthMedical Research Council MRC_MC_UU_00002/3Medical Research Council U105292687
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A standard two-arm randomised controlled trial usually compares an intervention to a control treatment with equal numbers of patients randomised to each treatment arm and only data from within the current trial are used to assess the treatment effect. Historical data are used when designing new trials and have recently been considered for use in the analysis when the required number of patients under a standard trial design cannot be achieved. Incorporating historical control data could lead to more efficient trials, reducing the number of controls required in the current study when the historical and current control data agree. However, when the data are inconsistent, there is potential for biased treatment effect estimates, inflated type I error and reduced power. We introduce two novel approaches for binary data which discount historical data based on the agreement with the current trial controls, an equivalence approach and an approach based on tail area probabilities. An adaptive design is used where the allocation ratio is adapted at the interim analysis, randomising fewer patients to control when there is agreement. The historical data are down-weighted in the analysis using the power prior approach with a fixed power. We compare operating characteristics of the proposed design to historical data methods in the literature: the modified power prior; commensurate prior; and robust mixture prior. The equivalence probability weight approach is intuitive and the operating characteristics can be calculated exactly. Furthermore, the equivalence bounds can be chosen to control the maximum possible inflation in type I error.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdaptive Clinical Trials as TopicBayes TheoremHumansProbabilityRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample Sizeadaptive designBayesianborrowinghistorical datapriors

Identifiers

PMID33474798
PMCPMC8611797

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.