Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33669985›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Handling Poor Accrual in Pediatric Trials: A Simulation Study Using a Bayesian Approach.

Danila Azzolina, Giulia Lorenzoni, Silvia Bressan, Liviana Da Dalt, Ileana Baldi, Dario Gregori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Danila AzzolinaUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac Thoracic Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8185-5742
Giulia LorenzoniUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac Thoracic Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1771-4686
Silvia BressanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, University of Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6736-5392
Liviana Da DaltDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, University of Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.
Ileana BaldiUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac Thoracic Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8578-9164
Dario GregoriUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac Thoracic Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7906-0580

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the conduction of trials, a common situation is related to potential difficulties in recruiting the planned sample size as provided by the study design. A Bayesian analysis of such trials might provide a framework to combine prior evidence with current evidence, and it is an accepted approach by regulatory agencies. However, especially for small trials, the Bayesian inference may be severely conditioned by the prior choices. The Renal Scarring Urinary Infection (RESCUE) trial, a pediatric trial that was a candidate for early termination due to underrecruitment, served as a motivating example to investigate the effects of the prior choices on small trial inference. The trial outcomes were simulated by assuming 50 scenarios combining different sample sizes and true absolute risk reduction (ARR). The simulated data were analyzed via the Bayesian approach using 0%, 50%, and 100% discounting factors on the beta power prior. An informative inference (0% discounting) on small samples could generate data-insensitive results. Instead, the 50% discounting factor ensured that the probability of confirming the trial outcome was higher than 80%, but only for an ARR higher than 0.17. A suitable option to maintain data relevant to the trial inference is to define a discounting factor based on the prior parameters. Nevertheless, a sensitivity analysis of the prior choices is highly recommended.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalResearch DesignBayes TheoremChildComputer SimulationHumansProbabilitySample SizeBayesian trialpoor accrualpower-prior

Identifiers

PMID33669985
PMCPMC7924849

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.