ArticleTrials2023
Adjustment for baseline characteristics in randomized trials using logistic regression: sample-based model versus true model.
Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdjustment for baseline prognostic factors in randomized clinical trials is usually performed by means of sample-based regression models. Sample-based models may be incorrect due to overfitting. To assess whether overfitting is a problem in practice, we used simulated data to examine the performance of the sample-based model in comparison to a "true" adjustment model, in terms of estimation of the treatment effect.
methodsWe conducted a simulation study using samples drawn from a "population" in which both the treatment effect and the effect of the potential confounder were specified. The outcome variable was binary. Using logistic regression, we compared three estimates of the treatment effect in each situation: unadjusted, adjusted for the confounder using the sample, adjusted for the confounder using the true effect. Experimental factors were sample size (from 2 × 50 to 2 × 1000), treatment effect (logit of 0, 0.5, or 1.0), confounder type (continuous or binary), and confounder effect (logit of 0, - 0.5, or - 1.0). The assessment criteria for the estimated treatment effect were bias, variance, precision (proportion of estimates within 0.1 logit units), type 1 error, and power.
resultsSample-based adjustment models yielded more biased estimates of the treatment effect than adjustment models that used the true confounder effect but had similar variance, accuracy, power, and type 1 error rates. The simulation also confirmed the conservative bias of unadjusted analyses due to the non-collapsibility of the odds ratio, the smaller variance of unadjusted estimates, and the bias of the odds ratio away from the null hypothesis in small datasets.
conclusionsSample-based adjustment yields similar results to exact adjustment in estimating the treatment effect. Sample-based adjustment is preferable to no adjustment.
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.