ArticleJournal of applied statistics2023
A flexible test for early-stage studies with multiple endpoints.
Article in Journal of applied statistics, 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
Abstract
This paper builds on the recently proposed prediction test for muliple endpoints. The prediction test combines information across multiple endpoints while accounting for the correlation between them. The test performs well with small samples relative to the number of endpoints of interest and is flexible in the hypotheses across the individual endpoints that can be combined. The prediction test addresses a global hypothesis that is of particular interest in early-stage studies and can be used as justification for continuing on to a larger trial. However, the prediction test has several limitations which we seek to address. First, the prediction test is overly conservative when both the effect sizes across all endpoints and the number of endpoints are small. By using a parametric bootstrap to estimate the null distribution, we show that the test achieves the nominal error rate in this situation and increases the power of the test. Second, we provide a framework to allow for predictions of a difference on one or more endpoints. Finally, we extend the test with a composite null hypothesis that allows for different null hypothesized predictive abilities across the endpoints which can be especially useful if the study contains both familiar and novel endpoints. We use an example from a physical activity trial to illustrate these extensions.
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.