Adrián V Hernández1, Ewout W Steyerberg, J Dik F Habbema. 1. Center for Clinical Decision Sciences, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam 3000 DR, The Netherlands. a.hernandez@erasmusmc.nl
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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