ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2024
A comparison of alternative ranking methods in two-stage clinical trials with multiple interventions: An application to the anxiolysis for laceration repair in children trial.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
- Anxiolysis for laceration repair in children: study protocol for an open-label multicenter adaptive trial (ALICE).PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsMulti-arm, multi-stage trials frequently include a standard care to which all interventions are compared. This may increase costs and hinders comparisons among the experimental arms. Furthermore, the standard care may not be evident, particularly when there is a large variation in standard practice. Thus, we aimed to develop an adaptive clinical trial that drops ineffective interventions following an interim analysis before selecting the best intervention at the final stage without requiring a standard care.
methodsWe used Bayesian methods to develop a multi-arm, two-stage adaptive trial and evaluated two different methods for ranking interventions, the probability that each intervention was optimal (P
resultsAs the number of interventions increases, the SUCRA results in a higher predictive power compared with P
conclusionBayesian ranking methods can be used in multi-arm, multi-stage trials with no clear control intervention. When more interventions are included, the SUCRA results in a higher power than P
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.