Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42808154›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical statistics

A Practical Guide to Optimal Adaptive Two-Stage Designs for Various Endpoint Types.

Nico Bruder, Jan Meis, Maximilian Pilz, Meinhard Kieser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Nico BruderInstitute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9522-2075
Jan MeisInstitute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Maximilian PilzInstitute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9685-1613
Meinhard KieserInstitute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2402-4333

Funding

Innovative Health Initiative 101165912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adaptive designs are frequently used to adjust sample sizes based on interim data, ensuring reliable conclusions while protecting resources. To maximize trial efficiency, design parameters can be optimized to minimize an objective function (e.g., the expected sample size) while rigorously controlling overall error rates or further operating characteristics. However, existing methodological guidance for optimal adaptive designs mainly focuses on normally distributed data or discrete optimizations for binary data, leaving a limited practical framework to practitioners who work with other common endpoint types. We address this by demonstrating how the asymptotic normal approximations of standard test statistics enable the optimization framework to be systematically applied across diverse endpoint types, including binary and time-to-event data. Furthermore, we highlight critical pitfalls in using optimal adaptive designs for two-sided testing. The results demonstrate that optimizing design parameters can substantially decrease expected sample sizes and improve conditional power compared to standard group-sequential designs. Using this guidance, we aim to enable researchers to efficiently plan clinical trials in a broad spectrum of clinical settings, a factor that is especially crucial in rare disease research where only limited patient populations are available.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationResearch DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalSample Sizeadaptive designclinical trialinterim analysisoptimal designsample size determinationstatistical hypothesis testing

Identifiers

PMID42808154
PMCPMC13621332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.