ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
Comparison of the power and type 1 error of total score models for drug effect detection in clinical trials.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Composite scale data consists of numerous categorical questions/items that are often summed as a total score and are commonly utilized as primary endpoints in clinical trials. These endpoints are conceptually discrete and constrained by nature. Item response theory (IRT) is a powerful approach for detecting drug effects in composite scale data from clinical trials, but estimating all parameters requires a large sample size and all item information, which may not be available. Therefore, total score models are often utilized. The most popular total score models are continuous variable (CV) models, but this strategy establishes assumptions that go against the integer nature, and typically also the bounded nature, of data. Bounded integer (BI) and Coarsened grid (CG) models respect the nature of the data. However, their power to detect drug effects has not been as thoroughly studied in clinical trials. When an IRT model is accessible, IRT-informed models (I-BI and I-CV) are promising methods in which the mean and variability of the total score at any position are extracted from the existing IRT model. In this study, total score data were simulated from the MDS-UPDRS motor subscale. Then, the power, type 1 error, and treatment effect bias of six total score models for detecting drug effects in clinical trials were explored. Further, it was investigated how the power, type 1 of error, and treatment effect bias for the I-BI and I-CV models were affected by mis-specified item information from the IRT model. The I-BI model demonstrated the highest statistical power, maintained an acceptable Type I error rate, and exhibited minimal bias, approaching zero. Following that, the I-CV, BI, and CG with Czado transformation (CG_Czado) models provided the maximum power. However, the CG_Czado model had inflated type 1 error under low sample size scenarios in each arm of clinical trials. The CG model among total score models displayed the lowest power and the most inflated type 1 error. Therefore, the results favor the I-BI model when an IRT model is available; otherwise, the BI model.
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.