Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39462370›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

When does adjusting covariate under randomization help? A comparative study on current practices.

Ying Gao, Yi Liu, Roland Matsouaka

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. COADVISE: covariate adjustment with variable selection in randomized controlled trials.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Ying Gao *Project Based Services, Cytel, Inc., 675 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, 02139, Massachusetts, USA.
Yi Liu *Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, 5109 SAS Hall, 2311 Stinson Dr, Raleigh, 27607, North Carolina, USA. yliu297@ncsu.edu.
Roland MatsouakaDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, 2424 Erwin Rd, Durham, 27705, North Carolina, USA. roland.matsouaka@duke.edu.

Funding

Integrated Biostatistical Training for CVD ResearchT32HL079896 · NHLBI · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI Sean M O'Brien, Ana-Maria Staicu · 2006 to 2026
$4.1M
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health T32HL079896NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL079896
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aim to thoroughly compare past and current methods that leverage baseline covariate information to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) using data from of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We especially focus on their performance, efficiency gain, and power.

methodsWe compared 6 different methods using extensive Monte-Carlo simulation studies: the unadjusted estimator, i.e., analysis of variance (ANOVA), the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), the analysis of heterogeneous covariance (ANHECOVA), the inverse probability weighting (IPW), the augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW), and the overlap weighting (OW) as well as the augmented overlap weighting (AOW) estimators. The performance of these methods is assessed using the relative bias (RB), the root mean square error (RMSE), the model-based standard error (SE) estimation, the coverage probability (CP), and the statistical power.

resultsEven with a well-executed randomization, adjusting for baseline covariates by an appropriate method can be a good practice. When the outcome model(s) used in a covariate-adjusted method is closer to the correctly specified model(s), the efficiency and power gained can be substantial. We also found that most covariate-adjusted methods can suffer from the high-dimensional curse, i.e., when the number of covariates is relatively high compared to the sample size, they can have poor performance (along with lower efficiency) in estimating ATE. Among the different methods we compared, the OW performs the best overall with smaller RMSEs and smaller model-based SEs, which also result in higher power when the true effect is non-zero. Furthermore, the OW is more robust when dealing with the high-dimensional issue.

conclusionTo effectively use covariate adjustment methods, understanding their nature is important for practical investigators. Our study shows that outcome model misspecification and high-dimension are two main burdens in a covariate adjustment method to gain higher efficiency and power. When these factors are appropriately considered, e.g., performing some variable selections if the data dimension is high before adjusting covariate, these methods are expected to be useful.

Indexed as

Monte Carlo MethodRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalysis of VarianceComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalAugmented estimatorsAverage treatment effectCovariate adjustmentOutcome regressionsPropensity score weightingRandomized clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID39462370
PMCPMC11514882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.