Literature DB >> 17674404

Power and sample size when multiple endpoints are considered.

Stephen Senn1, Frank Bretz.   

Abstract

A common approach to analysing clinical trials with multiple outcomes is to control the probability for the trial as a whole of making at least one incorrect positive finding under any configuration of true and false null hypotheses. Popular approaches are to use Bonferroni corrections or structured approaches such as, for example, closed-test procedures. As is well known, such strategies, which control the family-wise error rate, typically reduce the type I error for some or all the tests of the various null hypotheses to below the nominal level. In consequence, there is generally a loss of power for individual tests. What is less well appreciated, perhaps, is that depending on approach and circumstances, the test-wise loss of power does not necessarily lead to a family wise loss of power. In fact, it may be possible to increase the overall power of a trial by carrying out tests on multiple outcomes without increasing the probability of making at least one type I error when all null hypotheses are true. We examine two types of problems to illustrate this. Unstructured testing problems arise typically (but not exclusively) when many outcomes are being measured. We consider the case of more than two hypotheses when a Bonferroni approach is being applied while for illustration we assume compound symmetry to hold for the correlation of all variables. Using the device of a latent variable it is easy to show that power is not reduced as the number of variables tested increases, provided that the common correlation coefficient is not too high (say less than 0.75). Afterwards, we will consider structured testing problems. Here, multiplicity problems arising from the comparison of more than two treatments, as opposed to more than one measurement, are typical. We conduct a numerical study and conclude again that power is not reduced as the number of tested variables increases.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17674404     DOI: 10.1002/pst.301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharm Stat        ISSN: 1539-1604            Impact factor:   1.894


  16 in total

Review 1.  Design, data monitoring, and analysis of clinical trials with co-primary endpoints: A review.

Authors:  Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Scott R Evans; Koko Asakura
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 1.051

2.  Group-Sequential Strategies in Clinical Trials with Multiple Co-Primary Outcomes.

Authors:  Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Koko Asakura; Scott R Evans; Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Takashi Sozu
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.452

3.  Sample size determination in group-sequential clinical trials with two co-primary endpoints.

Authors:  Koko Asakura; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Kenichi Hayashi; Scott R Evans; Takashi Sozu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

Authors:  Arturo J Martí-Carvajal; Mark Dayer; Lucieni O Conterno; Alejandro G Gonzalez Garay; Cristina Elena Martí-Amarista
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-05-14

5.  Implementing Optimal Allocation in Clinical Trials with Multiple Endpoints.

Authors:  Lu Wang; Yong Chen; Hongjian Zhu
Journal:  J Stat Plan Inference       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 1.111

6.  Post hoc power estimation in large-scale multiple testing problems.

Authors:  Sonja Zehetmayer; Martin Posch
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-02-25       Impact factor: 6.937

7.  Sizing clinical trials when comparing bivariate time-to-event outcomes.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Scott R Evans; Takashi Sozu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Sample Size Considerations in Clinical Trials when Comparing Two Interventions using Multiple Co-Primary Binary Relative Risk Contrasts.

Authors:  Yuki Ando; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Scott R Evans; Koko Asakura; Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Takashi Sozu; Yuko Ohno
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 1.452

9.  Sample size calculations for continuous outcomes in clinical nutrition.

Authors:  Christian Ritz; Mette Frahm Olsen; Benedikte Grenov; Henrik Friis
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 4.016

10.  Sample size determination for clinical trials with co-primary outcomes: exponential event times.

Authors:  Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Scott Evans; Takashi Sozu
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 1.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.