ArticleJournal of biopharmaceutical statistics2025
Exploring Bayesian adaptive designs in multi-arm randomized controlled trials with a patient preference arm.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trial design efficiency is often defined as a design using the fewest subjects to achieve the trial goal with high probability. Multi-arm trials are more efficient than two-arm trials as they compare multiple therapies in a single trial. There has been an increase in the use of adaptive designs, particularly in response adaptive randomization (RAR) and early stopping, to further improve efficiencies in trial design. Designs with a higher probability of participants receiving better treatment and/or the ability to end early can be more efficient and attractive to investigators, participants, and stakeholders, but come with their criticisms. We set out to find the most efficient design for a future study. The purpose of this motivating study is to identify the application of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (control, chew, or patient choice of capsule or chew) that results in the highest adherence among pregnant women. The primary goal of this research was to find the most efficient trial design by comparing the performance of fixed and Bayesian adaptive designs (BAD) through operating characteristics using simulations. To evaluate the performance of competing designs, 'efficiency' was defined through a novel optimality assessment using a data envelopment analysis (DEA). Several fixed and adaptive trial designs with response adaptive randomization (RAR) and early stopping criteria across different accrual rates were considered. The DEA incorporated a balance in power, total sample size, and expected response outcome. The BAD utilizing RAR and early stopping for success and/or futility was determined to be the most efficient study design.
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.