ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Bayesian dynamic borrowing in group-sequential design for medical device studies.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methodologies for generating and evaluating clinical and performance evidence for high-risk and innovative medical devices andFrontiers in medical technology · 2026Pooled it
- Evidence integration and bridging methodologies for high-risk and innovative medical devices andFrontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A five-phase evaluation framework for diagnostic and predictive medical artificial intelligence.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe integration of historical data into ongoing clinical trials through Bayesian Dynamic Borrowing offers significant advantages, including reduced sample size, trial duration, and associated costs. However, challenges such as ensuring exchangeability between historical and current data and mitigating Type I error inflation remain critical. This study proposes a Bayesian group-sequential design incorporating a Self-Adaptive Mixture (SAM) prior framework to address these challenges in medical device trials.
methodsThe SAM prior combines informative priors derived from historical data with weakly informative priors, dynamically adjusting the weight of historical information based on congruence with current trial data. The design includes interim analyses, with Bayesian decision rules leveraging futility and efficacy boundaries derived using the frequentist spending functions. Effective Sample Size calculations informed adjustments to sample size and allocation ratios between experimental and control arms at each interim. The methodology was evaluated using a motivating example from a cardiovascular device trial with a noninferiority hypothesis.
resultsFour historical studies with substantial heterogeneity were incorporated. The SAM prior showed improved adaptation to prior-data conflicts compared to static methods, maintaining Type I error and Power at their nominal levels. In the motivating trial, the MAP prior was approximated as a mixture of beta distributions, facilitating congruence testing and posterior inference. Simulation studies confirmed the proposed design's efficiency under both congruent and incongruent scenarios.
conclusionsThe proposed Bayesian Group-Sequential Design with SAM prior offers a robust, adaptive framework for medical device trials, balancing statistical rigor with clinical interpretability. This approach enhances decision-making and supports timely, cost-effective evaluations, particularly in dynamic contexts like medical device development.
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.