Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38885949›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2024

Improved mortality analysis in early-phase dose-ranging clinical trials for emergency medical diseases using Bayesian time-to-event models with active comparators.

Xiaosong Shi, Jo A Wick, Renee' L Martin, Jonathan Beall, Robert Silbergleit, Gaylan L Rockswold, William G Barsan, Frederick K Korley, Sarah Rockswold, Byron J Gajewski

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02407028 (Hyperbaric Oxygen Brain Injury Treatment), which is not on this 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.

NCT02407028 phase2recruitingnot on this map

Hyperbaric Oxygen Brain Injury Treatment (HOBIT) Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorGaylan RockswoldRan2018 to 2029Enrolled200ConditionsTraumatic Brain InjuryArmsHyperbaric oxygen (1.5 ATA, no NBH), Hyperbaric oxygen (2.0 ATA, no NBH), Hyperbaric oxygen (2.5 ATA, no NBH), Hyperbaric oxygen (1.5 ATA + NBH), Hyperbaric oxygen (2.0 ATA + NBH)
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

10 authors.

Xiaosong ShiDepartment of Biostatistics & Data Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3820-2826
Jo A WickDepartment of Biostatistics & Data Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3445-3211
Renee' L MartinDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Jonathan BeallDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2135-2606
Robert SilbergleitDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Gaylan L RockswoldDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
William G BarsanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Frederick K KorleyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Sarah RockswoldDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Byron J GajewskiDepartment of Biostatistics & Data Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7589-8247

Funding

Hyperbaric Oxygen Brain Injury Treatment (HOBIT) Trial - CCCU01NS095926 · NINDS · HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Byron J. Gajewski, Frederick Kofi Korley · 2017 to 2026
$12.3M
Hyperbaric Oxygen BrainInjury Treatment (HOBIT) Trial-SDMC Supplement FITBIRU01NS095814 · NINDS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI MARTIN, RENEE HEBERT · 2017 to 2022
$2.3M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS095814NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS095926NINDS NIH HHS U01NS095926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emergency medical diseases (EMDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. A time-to-death analysis is needed to accurately identify the risks and describe the pattern of an EMD because the mortality rate can peak early and then decline. Dose-ranging Phase II clinical trials are essential for developing new therapies for EMDs. However, most dose-finding trials do not analyze mortality as a time-to-event endpoint. We propose three Bayesian dose-response time-to-event models for a secondary mortality analysis of a clinical trial: a two-group (active treatment vs control) model, a three-parameter sigmoid EMAX model, and a hierarchical EMAX model. The study also incorporates one specific active treatment as an active comparator in constructing three new models. We evaluated the performance of these six models and a very popular independent model using simulated data motivated by a randomized Phase II clinical trial focused on identifying the most effective hyperbaric oxygen dose to achieve favorable functional outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. The results show that the three-group, EMAX, and EMAX model with an active comparator produce the smallest averaged mean squared errors and smallest mean absolute biases. We provide a new approach for time-to-event analysis in early-phase dose-ranging clinical trials for EMDs. The EMAX model with an active comparator can provide valuable insights into the mortality analysis of new EMDs or other conditions that have changing risks over time. The restricted mean survival time, a function of the model's hazards, is recommended for displaying treatment effects for EMD research.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicModels, StatisticalBrain Injuries, TraumaticComputer SimulationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factorsactive controlBayesian designEMAXhierarchical modelssurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID38885949
PMCPMC11254573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.