Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38873327›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024

Likelihood based inferences for trials incorporating participant's treatment choice.

Rouba Chahine, Inmaculada Aban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 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

2 authors.

Rouba ChahineCenter of Clinical Research, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Inmaculada AbanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for clinical trials as they reduce bias and minimize variability between different arms of a study. One of the drawbacks of these designs is their lack of flexibility to incorporate participant's treatment choice, which may reduce recruitment rates and/or reduce participant's tolerance if they receive a non-preferred treatment. Designs incorporating choice allow a subset of participants to choose their preferred treatment. Most of the current methods to analyze these types of designs are based on an ANOVA approach that do not allow for inclusion of covariates in the model. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach based on likelihood methods that can be used with a broad class of distributions and allow for inclusion of covariates and multiple study arms in the model. Using simulations, we evaluate these methods for a variety of continuous and categorical outcomes. Finally, we illustrate these methods by analyzing change in six minute walking distance from a behavioral intervention study for women with heart disease.

Indexed as

CovariatesDoubly randomizedExponential familyLikelihood ratio testTwo-stage random choice trials

Identifiers

PMID38873327
PMCPMC11170208

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.