Literature DB >> 15580598

Controversies concerning randomization and additivity in clinical trials.

Stephen Senn1.   

Abstract

'As ye randomise so shall ye analyse', is one way of describing Fisher's defence of randomization. Yet, when it comes to clinical trials we nearly always randomize but we rarely analyse the way we randomize and Fisher himself was no exception. Two controversies involving Fisher in the 1930s are discussed: one with Neyman concerning additivity and the other with Student concerning randomization. Their relevance today is considered, as is whether randomization inference in clinical trials is dead and whether modelling rules the day, whether minimization is an acceptable procedure and to what extent trialists confuse experiments with surveys. It will be maintained that a number of different possible purposes of clinical trials have been confused because in the case of the general linear model, under strong additivity, they can all be satisfied by a single analysis. More generally, however, this is not the case. 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15580598     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2074

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


  16 in total

1.  Using Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials in Economic Models: What Information is Relevant and is There a Minimum Amount of Sample Data Required to Make Decisions?

Authors:  John W Stevens
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Does evidence support the high expectations placed in precision medicine? A bibliographic review.

Authors:  Jordi Cortés; José Antonio González; María Nuncia Medina; Markus Vogler; Marta Vilaró; Matt Elmore; Stephen John Senn; Michael Campbell; Erik Cobo
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-01-09

3.  Value of predictive instruments to determine persisting restriction of function in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain. Systematic review.

Authors:  Roger Hilfiker; Lucas M Bachmann; Carolin A-M Heitz; Tobias Lorenz; Harri Joronen; Andreas Klipstein
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  How many strata in an RCT? A flexible approach.

Authors:  P Silcocks
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 5.  Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in adults and children.

Authors:  Tom Jefferson; Mark A Jones; Peter Doshi; Chris B Del Mar; Rokuro Hama; Matthew J Thompson; Elizabeth A Spencer; Igho Onakpoya; Kamal R Mahtani; David Nunan; Jeremy Howick; Carl J Heneghan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-04-10

6.  Testing for baseline differences in randomized controlled trials: an unhealthy research behavior that is hard to eradicate.

Authors:  Michiel R de Boer; Wilma E Waterlander; Lothar D J Kuijper; Ingrid H M Steenhuis; Jos W R Twisk
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2015-01-24       Impact factor: 6.457

7.  Understanding Variation in Sets of N-of-1 Trials.

Authors:  Artur Araujo; Steven Julious; Stephen Senn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?

Authors:  Nicole B Gabler; Naihua Duan; Diana Liao; Joann G Elmore; Theodore G Ganiats; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-06-19       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  An investigation of minimisation criteria.

Authors:  Angie Wade; Huiqi Pan; Simon Eaton; Agostino Pierro; Evelyn Ong
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Mastering variation: variance components and personalised medicine.

Authors:  Stephen Senn
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.