Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34669968›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2023

A novel statistical test for treatment differences in clinical trials using a response-adaptive forward-looking Gittins Index Rule.

Helen Yvette Barnett, Sofía S Villar, Helena Geys, Thomas Jaki

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerations.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2023
    Article
  2. Estimating design operating characteristics in Bayesian adaptive clinical trials.The Canadian journal of statistics = Revue canadienne de statistique · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Helen Yvette BarnettMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7466-7033
Sofía S VillarMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7755-2637
Helena GeysJanssen Pharmaceutica, Beerse, Belgium.
Thomas JakiMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Department of Health BRC-1215-20014Department of Health NIHR-SRF-2015-08-001Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/14Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/15Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most common objective for response-adaptive clinical trials is to seek to ensure that patients within a trial have a high chance of receiving the best treatment available by altering the chance of allocation on the basis of accumulating data. Approaches that yield good patient benefit properties suffer from low power from a frequentist perspective when testing for a treatment difference at the end of the study due to the high imbalance in treatment allocations. In this work we develop an alternative pairwise test for treatment difference on the basis of allocation probabilities of the covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization with forward-looking Gittins Index (CARA-FLGI) Rule for binary responses. The performance of the novel test is evaluated in simulations for two-armed studies and then its applications to multiarmed studies are illustrated. The proposed test has markedly improved power over the traditional Fisher exact test when this class of nonmyopic response adaptation is used. We also find that the test's power is close to the power of a Fisher exact test under equal randomization.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalResearch DesignAdaptive Clinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansProbabilityRandom Allocationallocation probabilityinferencenonmyopicpowertesting for superiority

Identifiers

PMID34669968
PMCPMC7614356

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.