Literature DB >> 15196615

Covariate adjustment in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirements.

Adrián V Hernández1, Ewout W Steyerberg, J Dik F Habbema.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with dichotomous outcomes may be analyzed with or without adjustment for baseline characteristics (covariates). We studied type I error, power, and potential reduction in sample size with several covariate adjustment strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Logistic regression analysis was applied to simulated data sets (n=360) with different treatment effects, covariate effects, outcome incidences, and covariate prevalences. Treatment effects were estimated with or without adjustment for a single dichotomous covariate. Strategies included always adjusting for the covariate ("prespecified"), or only when the covariate was predictive or imbalanced.
RESULTS: We found that the type I error was generally at the nominal level. The power was highest with prespecified adjustment. The potential reduction in sample size was higher with stronger covariate effects (from 3 to 46%, at 50% outcome incidence and covariate prevalence) and independent of the treatment effect. At lower outcome incidences and/or covariate prevalences, the reduction was lower.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that adjustment for a predictive baseline characteristic may lead to a potentially important increase in power of analyses of treatment effect. Adjusted analysis should, hence, be considered more often for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15196615     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  75 in total

1.  Overcoming underpowering: Trial simulations and a global rank end point to optimize clinical trials in children with heart disease.

Authors:  Kevin D Hill; H Scott Baldwin; David P Bichel; Alicia M Ellis; Eric M Graham; Christoph P Hornik; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Robert D B Jaquiss; Marshall L Jacobs; Prince J Kannankeril; Jennifer S Li; Rachel Torok; Joseph W Turek; Sean M O'Brien
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 4.749

2.  Covariate adjustment increased power in randomized controlled trials: an example in traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Turner; Pablo Perel; Tim Clayton; Phil Edwards; Adrian V Hernández; Ian Roberts; Haleema Shakur; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Quantifying the cost in power of ignoring continuous covariate imbalances in clinical trial randomization.

Authors:  Jody Ciolino; Wenle Zhao; Renee' Martin; Yuko Palesch
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  Robust extraction of covariate information to improve estimation efficiency in randomized trials.

Authors:  Kelly L Moore; Romain Neugebauer; Thamban Valappil; Mark J Laan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Clinical trial design in the neurocritical care unit.

Authors:  C E Hall; M Mirski; Y Y Palesch; M N Diringer; A I Qureshi; C S Robertson; R Geocadin; C A C Wijman; P D Le Roux; Jose I Suarez
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.210

6.  Promoting Health by Addressing Basic Needs: Effect of Problem Resolution on Contacting Health Referrals.

Authors:  Tess Thompson; Matthew W Kreuter; Sonia Boyum
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2015-08-20

7.  Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: targeted maximum likelihood estimation.

Authors:  K L Moore; M J van der Laan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 9.  Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review.

Authors:  Ly-Mee Yu; An-Wen Chan; Sally Hopewell; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices.

Authors:  Anthony J Avery; Sarah Rodgers; Judith A Cantrill; Sarah Armstrong; Rachel Elliott; Rachel Howard; Denise Kendrick; Caroline J Morris; Scott A Murray; Robin J Prescott; Kathrin Cresswell; Aziz Sheikh
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.