Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165443›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2025

Optimising error rates in programmes of pilot and definitive trials using Bayesian statistical decision theory.

Duncan T Wilson, Andrew Hall, Julia M Brown, Rebecca Ea Walwyn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Duncan T WilsonLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7949-8718
Andrew HallLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, UK.
Julia M BrownLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, UK.
Rebecca Ea WalwynLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pilot trials are often conducted in advance of definitive trials to assess their feasibility and to inform their design. Although pilot trials typically collect primary endpoint data, preliminary tests of effectiveness have been discouraged given their typically low power. Power could be increased at the cost of a higher type I error rate, but there is little methodological guidance on how to determine the optimal balance between these operating characteristics. We consider a Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to this problem, introducing a utility function and defining an optimal pilot and definitive trial programme as that which maximises expected utility. We base utility on changes in average primary outcome, the cost of sampling, treatment costs, and the decision-maker's attitude to risk. We apply this approach to re-design OK-Diabetes, a pilot trial of a complex intervention with a continuous primary outcome with known standard deviation. We then examine how optimal programme characteristics vary with the parameters of the utility function. We find that the conventional approach of not testing for effectiveness in pilot trials can be considerably sub-optimal.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDecision TheoryBayes TheoremHumansPilot ProjectsResearch DesignClinical trialexpected utilityexternal pilotoptimal designpilot trialstatistical decision theory

Identifiers

PMID40165443
PMCPMC12209550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.