ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Operating characteristics of unequal allocation ratios in platform trials with the staggered addition of drugs using binary endpoints.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: One recommendation for the allocation ratio between multiple drugs and a shared placebo control group in platform trials (PTs) is to use a Methods: We compared the performances of equal and unequal allocation ratios through simulations to imitate practical PTs using only concurrent controls and binary endpoints for hospitalized patients with infectious diseases. The operating characteristics, including the type I error rate, power of hypothesis testing, and total sample size, were evaluated. Results: In PTs, using an unequal allocation ratio (i) results in a considerable augmentation of the total sample size and prolongs the study duration when monthly patient enrollment is low, but (ii) the target power of hypothesis testing is often preserved compared to an equal allocation ratio, even when we incorrectly specify the drug and placebo group mortality rates assumed in the sample size calculation. The average power increase using an unequal allocation ratio relative to the equal allocation ratio per 100-patient increase in the placebo group was approximately 1.9 % in the selected scenarios of our simulation studies. Conclusion: The results of the current study highlight the quantitative advantages and disadvantages of using unequal allocation ratios in PTs using only concurrent controls under the specific conditions assumed in our simulations and analyses.
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.