Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34077288›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2021

Frequentist rules for regulatory approval of subgroups in phase III trials: A fresh look at an old problem.

K Edgar, D Jackson, K Rhodes, T Duffy, C-F Burman, L D Sharples

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Estimands and Complex Innovative Designs.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2022
    Review
  2. 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.

K EdgarDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9954-5531
D JacksonStatistical Innovation, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
K RhodesStatistical Innovation, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
T DuffyStatistical Innovation, BioPharmaceutical R&D, AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.
C-F BurmanWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
L D SharplesDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0894-966X

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of Phase III trials that include a biomarker in design and analysis has increased due to interest in personalised medicine. For genetic mutations and other predictive biomarkers, the trial sample comprises two subgroups, one of which, say METHODS AND

resultsAssuming trial analysis can be completed using generalised linear models, we define and evaluate three frequentist decision rules for approval. For rule one, the significance of the average treatment effect in

conclusionsWhen additional conditions are required for approval of a new treatment in a lower response subgroup, easily applied rules based on minimum effect sizes and relaxed interaction tests are available. Choice of rule is influenced by the proportion of patients sampled from the two subgroups but less so by the correlation between subgroup effects.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsenrichmentregulatory approvalsubgroups

Identifiers

PMID34077288
PMCPMC8411475

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.