ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Risk of Bias When Using Early Failure Criteria in Randomized Clinical Trials With Stereoacuity Outcomes.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of early failure criteria for participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on overall trial conclusions. Method: We simulated 10,000 hypothetical RCTs with 2 treatments, 1 linear improvement and 1 with increasing rate of improvement and 6 follow-up visits. Each RCT had 400 participants, with the same baseline stereoacuity distribution. We incorporated random test-retest noise for every visit, and scores were rounded to the nearest observable score. Early failure was defined as worsening of two or more levels. We compared mean outcome stereoacuity between treatment groups, with and without the failure rule, using the two-sample t-test and the proportion of erroneous RCTs (significantly different mean outcome values, where truth is known to be no different). Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the influence of sample size, baseline distribution of stereoacuity, overall magnitude of mean improvement, magnitude of change for the failure rule, and distribution of noise. Results: A greater proportion of 10,000 simulated RCTs had an erroneous mean difference in outcome with the early failure rule than without (5.49%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.05% to 5.94% vs. 0, 0%, 95% CI = 0% to 0.000001%, difference 5.49%, P < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis revealed that increased sample size and wider distribution of noise had the greatest influence on increasing proportions of erroneous RCT conclusions. Conclusions: Study designs incorporating participant-level early failure rules increase the risk of erroneous RCT conclusions and should be avoided. Translational Relevance: We provide data informing the design of future clinical trials. Earlier failure rules at the participant level should be avoided.
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.