Literature DB >> 25396221

Chronological bias in randomized clinical trials arising from different types of unobserved time trends.

M Tamm1, R-D Hilgers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials patients are commonly recruited sequentially over time incurring the risk of chronological bias due to (unobserved) time trends. To minimize the risk of chronological bias, a suitable randomization procedure should be chosen.
OBJECTIVES: Considering different time trend scenarios, we aim at a detailed evaluation of the extent of chronological bias under permuted block randomization in order to provide recommendations regarding the choice of randomization at the design stage of a clinical trial and to assess the maximum extent of bias for a realized sequence in the analysis stage.
METHODS: For the assessment of chronological bias we consider linear, logarithmic and stepwise trends illustrating typical changes during recruitment in clinical practice. Bias and variance of the treatment effect estimator as well as the empirical type I error rate when applying the t-test are investigated. Different sample sizes, block sizes and strengths of time trends are considered.
RESULTS: Using large block sizes, a notable bias exists in the estimate of the treatment effect for specific sequences. This results in a heavily inflated type I error for realized worst-case sequences and an enlarged mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator. Decreasing the block size restricts these effects of time trends. Already applying permuted block randomization with two blocks instead of the random allocation rule achieves a good reduction of the mean squared error and of the inflated type I error. Averaged over all sequences, the type I error of the t-test is far below the nominal significance level due to an overestimated variance.
CONCLUSIONS: Unobserved time trends can induce a strong bias in the treatment effect estimate and in the test decision. Therefore, already in the design stage of a clinical trial a suitable randomization procedure should be chosen. According to our results, small block sizes should be preferred, but also medium block sizes are sufficient to restrict chronological bias to an acceptable extent if other contrary aspects have to be considered (e.g. serious risk of selection bias). Regardless of the block size, a blocked ANOVA should be used because the t-test is far too conservative, even for weak time trends.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronological bias; drift; permuted block randomization; time trends

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25396221     DOI: 10.3414/ME14-01-0048

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

2.  Social reward improves the voluntary control over localized brain activity in fMRI-based neurofeedback training.

Authors:  Krystyna A Mathiak; Eliza M Alawi; Yury Koush; Miriam Dyck; Julia S Cordes; Tilman J Gaber; Florian D Zepf; Nicola Palomero-Gallagher; Pegah Sarkheil; Susanne Bergert; Mikhail Zvyagintsev; Klaus Mathiak
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.558

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.  Response-adaptive designs for binary responses: How to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends?

Authors:  Sofía S Villar; Jack Bowden; James Wason
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 1.894

5.  Including non-concurrent control patients in the analysis of platform trials: is it worth it?

Authors:  Kim May Lee; James Wason
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-06-24       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.  Statistical consideration when adding new arms to ongoing clinical trials: the potentials and the caveats.

Authors:  Kim May Lee; Louise C Brown; Thomas Jaki; Nigel Stallard; James Wason
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 2.279

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.