ArticleJournal of biopharmaceutical statistics2025
Sample size determination for a study with variable follow-up time.
Article in Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For a study to detect the outcome change at the follow-up visit from baseline, the pre-test and post-test design is commonly used to assess the treatment-control difference. Several existing methods were developed for sample size calculation including the subtraction method, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and linear mixed model. The first two methods can be used when the follow-up time is the same as scheduled. Although the linear mixed model can analyze the repeated measures by including the actual visit time to account for the variability of the follow-up time, it often assumes a constant treatment-control difference at any follow-up time which may not be correct in practice. We propose to develop a new statistical model to compare the treatment-control difference at the planned follow-up time while controlling for the follow-up time variation. The spline functions are used to estimate the trajectories of the treatment arm and the control arm. We compared the performance of these methods with regards to type I error rate, statistical power, and sample size under various conditions. These four methods all control for the type I error rate. The new method and the ANCOVA method are often more powerful than the other two methods, and they have similar statistical power when a linear disease progression is satisfied. For a study with non-linear disease progression, the new method can be more powerful than the ANCOVA method. We used data from a completed Alzheimer's disease trial to illustrate the application of the proposed method.
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.