Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38980954›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2024

Determining sample size in a personalized randomized controlled (PRACTical) trial.

Rebecca M Turner, Kim May Lee, A Sarah Walker, Sally Ellis, Michael Sharland, Julia A Bielicki, Wolfgang Stöhr, Ian R White

Abstract 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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Rebecca M TurnerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7194-5464
Kim May LeeInstitute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0553-973X
A Sarah WalkerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.
Sally EllisGlobal Antibiotic Research & Development Partnership (GARDP), Geneva, Switzerland.
Michael SharlandInstitute of Infection and Immunity, St. George's University of London, London, UK.
Julia A BielickiInstitute of Infection and Immunity, St. George's University of London, London, UK.
Wolfgang StöhrMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.
Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-7661

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/09Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical settings with no commonly accepted standard-of-care, multiple treatment regimens are potentially useful, but some treatments may not be appropriate for some patients. A personalized randomized controlled trial (PRACTical) design has been proposed for this setting. For a network of treatments, each patient is randomized only among treatments which are appropriate for them. The aim is to produce treatment rankings that can inform clinical decisions about treatment choices for individual patients. Here we propose methods for determining sample size in a PRACTical design, since standard power-based methods are not applicable. We derive a sample size by evaluating information gained from trials of varying sizes. For a binary outcome, we quantify how many adverse outcomes would be prevented by choosing the top-ranked treatment for each patient based on trial results rather than choosing a random treatment from the appropriate personalized randomization list. In simulations, we evaluate three performance measures: mean reduction in adverse outcomes using sample information, proportion of simulated patients for whom the top-ranked treatment performed as well or almost as well as the best appropriate treatment, and proportion of simulated trials in which the top-ranked treatment performed better than a randomly chosen treatment. We apply the methods to a trial evaluating eight different combination antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis (NeoSep1), in which a PRACTical design addresses varying patterns of antibiotic choice based on disease characteristics and resistance. Our proposed approach produces results that are more relevant to complex decision making by clinicians and policy makers.

Indexed as

Precision MedicineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansInfant, NewbornModels, StatisticalSample SizeSepsisclinical trialsmultiple treatmentspersonalized randomizationsample sizetrial design

Identifiers

PMID38980954
PMCPMC7616655

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.