Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36732886›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2023

The Personalised Randomized Controlled Trial: Evaluation of a new trial design.

Kim May Lee, Rebecca M Turner, Guy E Thwaites, A Sarah Walker, Ian R White

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kim May LeeInstitute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0553-973X
Rebecca M TurnerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7194-5464
Guy E ThwaitesCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
A Sarah WalkerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-7661
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/07Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/09Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In some clinical scenarios, for example, severe sepsis caused by extensively drug resistant bacteria, there is uncertainty between many common treatments, but a conventional multiarm randomized trial is not possible because individual participants may not be eligible to receive certain treatments. The Personalised Randomized Controlled Trial design allows each participant to be randomized between a "personalised randomization list" of treatments that are suitable for them. The primary aim is to produce treatment rankings that can guide choice of treatment, rather than focusing on the estimates of relative treatment effects. Here we use simulation to assess several novel analysis approaches for this innovative trial design. One of the approaches is like a network meta-analysis, where participants with the same personalised randomization list are like a trial, and both direct and indirect evidence are used. We evaluate this proposed analysis and compare it with analyses making less use of indirect evidence. We also propose new performance measures including the expected improvement in outcome if the trial's rankings are used to inform future treatment rather than random choice. We conclude that analysis of a personalized randomized controlled trial can be performed by pooling data from different types of participants and is robust to moderate subgroup-by-intervention interactions based on the parameters of our simulation. The proposed approach performs well with respect to estimation bias and coverage. It provides an overall treatment ranking list with reasonable precision, and is likely to improve outcome on average if used to determine intervention policies and guide individual clinical decisions.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignHumansPatient ParticipationPrecision Medicineindirect evidencenetwork meta-analysispersonalised randomizationsubgroup analysis

Identifiers

PMID36732886
PMCPMC7615735
OpenAlexW4319058127

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.