Literature DB >> 14652862

A note on non-parametric ANCOVA for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials.

Emmanuel Lesaffre1, Stephen Senn.   

Abstract

Koch et al. recently (1998) proposed two covariate-adjusted approaches for the comparison of continuous, ordinal and binary responses in a randomized clinical trial (Statist. Med. 1998; 17: 1863-1892). The first is a randomization approach while the second assumes that the study is a sample of a population. Here, we study the second approach and consider the simplest cases of two treatments with a continuous response and with a binary response. Koch's second approach will be compared with the classical ANCOVA for a continuous response. From this relationship we demonstrate that Koch's method cannot preserve the probability of the type I error. Simulations with continuous responses as well as with binary outcomes confirm the aforementioned theoretical result on the performance of Koch's method under the null hypothesis of no treatment effect. However, this poses only a problem for relatively small to moderate sample sizes. Further, as specified in the original paper of Koch et al., the first approach does preserve the type I error for any sample size, as the P-values can be reported in an exact manner (Statist. Med. 1998; 17: 1863-1892). Finally, we propose a correction factor for Koch's test statistic that better preserves the type I error. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14652862     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1583

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  7 in total

1.  Efficiency improvement in a class of survival models through model-free covariate incorporation.

Authors:  Tanya P Garcia; Yanyuan Ma; Guosheng Yin
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Variable selection for covariate-adjusted semiparametric inference in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Shuai Yuan; Hao Helen Zhang; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Robust methods to improve efficiency and reduce bias in estimating survival curves in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Min Zhang
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 1.588

4.  Covariate adjustment for two-sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: a principled yet flexible approach.

Authors:  Anastasios A Tsiatis; Marie Davidian; Min Zhang; Xiaomin Lu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Inverse probability weighting for covariate adjustment in randomized studies.

Authors:  Changyu Shen; Xiaochun Li; Lingling Li
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Improving efficiency of inferences in randomized clinical trials using auxiliary covariates.

Authors:  Min Zhang; Anastasios A Tsiatis; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 1.701

7.  Sample size considerations for trials using cerebral white matter hyperintensity progression as an intermediate outcome at 1 year after mild stroke: results of a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Francesca M Chappell; Maria Del Carmen Valdés Hernández; Stephen D Makin; Kirsten Shuler; Eleni Sakka; Martin S Dennis; Paul A Armitage; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Joanna M Wardlaw
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.279

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.