Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38725072›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Upstrapping to determine futility: predicting future outcomes nonparametrically from past data.

Jessica L Wild, Adit A Ginde, Christopher J Lindsell, Alexander M Kaizer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Jessica L WildDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. jessica.wild@cuanschutz.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2927-8239
Adit A GindeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Christopher J LindsellDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Alexander M KaizerDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

Statistical Methods and Adaptive Trial Designs for Cardiovascular Outcomes with Information SharingK01HL151754 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI KAIZER, ALEXANDER MARK · 2021 to 2025
$742k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL151754
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials often involve some form of interim monitoring to determine futility before planned trial completion. While many options for interim monitoring exist (e.g., alpha-spending, conditional power), nonparametric based interim monitoring methods are also needed to account for more complex trial designs and analyses. The upstrap is one recently proposed nonparametric method that may be applied for interim monitoring.

methodsUpstrapping is motivated by the case resampling bootstrap and involves repeatedly sampling with replacement from the interim data to simulate thousands of fully enrolled trials. The p-value is calculated for each upstrapped trial and the proportion of upstrapped trials for which the p-value criteria are met is compared with a pre-specified decision threshold. To evaluate the potential utility for upstrapping as a form of interim futility monitoring, we conducted a simulation study considering different sample sizes with several different proposed calibration strategies for the upstrap. We first compared trial rejection rates across a selection of threshold combinations to validate the upstrapping method. Then, we applied upstrapping methods to simulated clinical trial data, directly comparing their performance with more traditional alpha-spending and conditional power interim monitoring methods for futility.

resultsThe method validation demonstrated that upstrapping is much more likely to find evidence of futility in the null scenario than the alternative across a variety of simulations settings. Our three proposed approaches for calibration of the upstrap had different strengths depending on the stopping rules used. Compared to O'Brien-Fleming group sequential methods, upstrapped approaches had type I error rates that differed by at most 1.7% and expected sample size was 2-22% lower in the null scenario, while in the alternative scenario power fluctuated between 15.7% lower and 0.2% higher and expected sample size was 0-15% lower.

conclusionsIn this proof-of-concept simulation study, we evaluated the potential for upstrapping as a resampling-based method for futility monitoring in clinical trials. The trade-offs in expected sample size, power, and type I error rate control indicate that the upstrap can be calibrated to implement futility monitoring with varying degrees of aggressiveness and that performance similarities can be identified relative to considered alpha-spending and conditional power futility monitoring methods.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationMedical FutilityResearch DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalSample SizeTreatment OutcomeAlpha-spendingConditional powerFutility monitoringInterim monitoringNonparametricUpstrap

Identifiers

PMID38725072
PMCPMC11083808

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.