ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
An automated platform trial framework for A/B testing.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
This paper proposes a platform trial for conducting A/B tests with multiple arms and interim monitoring to investigate the impact of several factors on the expected sample size and probability of early stopping. We examined the performance of three stopping boundaries: O'Brien Fleming (OBF) stopping for either futility or difference (both), Pocock stopping for futility only, and fixed sample size design. We simulated twelve scenarios of different orders of arms based on various effect sizes, as well as considered 1 or 3 interim looks. The overall findings are summarizing in a flowchart to provide intuitive guidance for the design of the platform based on the simulation. We found that it is better to use OBF stopping for both if there is any effective variant and the trial is sufficiently powered to detect the expected effect size. If the study is underpowered to detect a difference, we recommend fixed sample size design to gather as much information as possible, however if the expected sample size is important to minimize, we recommend using Pocock boundaries with futility monitoring. Our results aimed at helping high-tech companies conduct their own studies without requiring extensive knowledge of clinical trial design and statistical methodology.
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.