Literature DB >> 22101391

Influence of selection bias on the test decision. A simulation study.

M Tamm1, E Cramer, L N Kennes, N Heussen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Selection bias arises in clinical trials by reason of selective assignment of patients to treatment groups. Even in randomized clinical trials with allocation concealment this phenomenon can occur if future assignments can be predicted due to knowledge of former allocations.
OBJECTIVES: Considering unmasked randomized clinical trials with allocation concealment the impact of selection bias on type I error rate under permuted block randomization is investigated. We aimed to extend the existing research into this topic by including practical assumptions concerning misclassification of patient characteristics to get an estimate of type I error close to clinical routine. To establish an upper bound for the type I error rate different biasing strategies of the investigator are compared first. In addition, the aspect of patient availability is considered.
METHODS: To evaluate the influence of selection bias on type I error rate under several practical situations, different block sizes, selection effects, biasing strategies and success rates of patient classification were simulated using SAS.
RESULTS: Type I error rate exceeds 5 percent significance level; it reaches values up to 21 percent. More cautious biasing strategies and misclassification of patient characteristics may diminish but cannot eliminate selection bias. The number of screened patients is about three times larger than the needed number for the trial.
CONCLUSIONS: Even in unmasked randomized clinical trials using permuted block randomization with allocation concealment the influence of selection bias must not be disregarded evaluating the test decision. It should be incorporated when designing and reporting a clinical trial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22101391     DOI: 10.3414/ME11-01-0043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Inf Med        ISSN: 0026-1270            Impact factor:   2.176


  9 in total

1.  Implementing Optimal Designs for Dose-Response Studies Through Adaptive Randomization for a Small Population Group.

Authors:  Yevgen Ryeznik; Oleksandr Sverdlov; Andrew C Hooker
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 2.  Risk of selection bias in randomised trials.

Authors:  Brennan C Kahan; Sunita Rehal; Suzie Cro
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 2.279

3.  ERDO - a framework to select an appropriate randomization procedure for clinical trials.

Authors:  Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Diane Uschner; William F Rosenberger; Nicole Heussen
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Assessing the impact of selection bias on test decisions in trials with a time-to-event outcome.

Authors:  Marcia Viviane Rückbeil; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Nicole Heussen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Mechanisms and direction of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials.

Authors:  Asger Paludan-Müller; David Ruben Teindl Laursen; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Design and analysis of stratified clinical trials in the presence of bias.

Authors:  Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Martin Manolov; Nicole Heussen; William F Rosenberger
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2019-05-10       Impact factor: 3.021

7.  The impact of selection bias in randomized multi-arm parallel group clinical trials.

Authors:  Diane Uschner; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Nicole Heussen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Lessons learned from IDeAl - 33 recommendations from the IDeAl-net about design and analysis of small population clinical trials.

Authors:  Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Malgorzata Bogdan; Carl-Fredrik Burman; Holger Dette; Mats Karlsson; Franz König; Christoph Male; France Mentré; Geert Molenberghs; Stephen Senn
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 4.123

9.  Altmetrics Attention Scores for Randomized Controlled Trials in Total Joint Arthroplasty Are Reflective of High Scientific Quality: An Altmetrics-Based Methodological Quality and Bias Analysis.

Authors:  Kyle N Kunze; Michelle Richardson; David N Bernstein; Ajay Premkumar; Nicolas S Piuzzi; Alexander S McLawhorn
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2020-12
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.