Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34859693›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022

Expected Value of Sample Information to Guide the Design of Group Sequential Clinical Trials.

Laura Flight, Steven Julious, Alan Brennan, Susan Todd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. 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. A Pragmatic Bayesian Adaptive Trial Design Based on the Value of Information: The Value-Driven Adaptive Design.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  2. Accurate EVSI Estimation for Nonlinear Models Using the Gaussian Approximation Method.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

4 authors.

Laura FlightSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9569-8290
Steven JuliousSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Alan BrennanSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Susan ToddDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, Reading, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdaptive designs allow changes to an ongoing trial based on prespecified early examinations of accrued data. Opportunities are potentially being missed to incorporate health economic considerations into the design of these studies.

methodsWe describe how to estimate the expected value of sample information for group sequential design adaptive trials. We operationalize this approach in a hypothetical case study using data from a pilot trial. We report the expected value of sample information and expected net benefit of sampling results for 5 design options for the future full-scale trial including the fixed-sample-size design and the group sequential design using either the Pocock stopping rule or the O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 or 5 analyses. We considered 2 scenarios relating to 1) using the cost-effectiveness model with a traditional approach to the health economic analysis and 2) adjusting the cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate the bias-adjusted maximum likelihood estimates of trial outcomes to account for the bias that can be generated in adaptive trials.

resultsThe case study demonstrated that the methods developed could be successfully applied in practice. The results showed that the O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 analyses was the most efficient design with the highest expected net benefit of sampling in the case study.

conclusionsCost-effectiveness considerations are unavoidable in budget-constrained, publicly funded health care systems, and adaptive designs can provide an alternative to costly fixed-sample-size designs. We recommend that when planning a clinical trial, expected value of sample information methods be used to compare possible adaptive and nonadaptive trial designs, with appropriate adjustment, to help justify the choice of design characteristics and ensure the cost-effective use of research funding. HIGHLIGHTS: Opportunities are potentially being missed to incorporate health economic considerations into the design of adaptive clinical trials.Existing expected value of sample information analysis methods can be extended to compare possible group sequential and nonadaptive trial designs when planning a clinical trial.We recommend that adjusted analyses be presented to control for the potential impact of the adaptive designs and to maintain the accuracy of the calculations.This approach can help to justify the choice of design characteristics and ensure the cost-effective use of limited research funding.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdaptive Clinical Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSample Sizeadaptive designsbias adjustmentclinical trialsexpected value of sample informationvalue of information analysis

Identifiers

PMID34859693
PMCPMC9005835

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.