ArticleThe annals of applied statistics2022
BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL RANDOM-EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PHASE I CLINICAL TRIALS.
Article in The annals of applied statistics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- TODO: A Triple-Outcome Double-Criterion Optimal Design for Dose Monitoring-and-Optimization in Multi-Dose Randomized Trials.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- REDOMA: Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis using spike-and-slab priors.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Adaptive Bayesian information borrowing methods for finding and optimizing subgroup-specific doses.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Review
- Optimizing dose-schedule regimens with bayesian adaptive designs: opportunities and challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We propose a curve-free random-effects meta-analysis approach to combining data from multiple phase I clinical trials to identify an optimal dose. Our method accounts for between-study heterogeneity that may stem from different study designs, patient populations, or tumor types. We also develop a meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) method based on a power prior that incorporates data from multiple historical studies into the design and conduct of a new phase I trial. Performances of the proposed methods for data analysis and trial design are evaluated by extensive simulation studies. The proposed random-effects meta-analysis method provides more reliable dose selection than comparators that rely on parametric assumptions. The MAP-based dose-finding designs are generally more efficient than those that do not borrow information, especially when the current and historical studies are similar. The proposed methodologies are illustrated by a meta-analysis of five historical phase I studies of Sorafenib, and design of a new phase I trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.