Literature DB >> 34860471

Adjusting for bias in the mean for primary and secondary outcomes when trials are in sequence.

Joanne C Rothwell1,2, Steven A Julious2, Cindy L Cooper3.   

Abstract

When designing a clinical trial, one key aspect of the design is the sample size calculation. The sample size calculation tends to rely on a target or expected difference. The expected difference can be based on the observed data from previous studies, which results in bias. It has been reported that large treatment effects observed in trials are often not replicated in subsequent trials. If these values are used to design subsequent studies, the sample sizes may be biased which results in an unethical study. Regression to the mean (RTM) is one explanation for this. If only health technologies which meet a particular continuation criterion (such as p < 0.05 in the first study) are progressed to a second confirmatory trial, it is highly likely that the observed effect in the second trial will be lower than that observed in the first trial. It will be shown how when moving from one trial to the next, a truncated normal distribution is inherently imposed on the first study. This results in a lower observed effect size in the second trial. A simple adjustment method is proposed based on the mathematical properties of the truncated normal distribution. This adjustment method was confirmed using simulations in R and compared with other previous adjustments. The method can be applied to the observed effect in a trial, which is being used in the design of a second confirmatory trial, resulting in a more stable estimate for the 'true' treatment effect. The adjustment accounts for the bias in the primary and secondary endpoints in the first trial with the bias being affected by the power of that study. Tables of results have been provided to aid implementation, along with a worked example. In summary, there is a bias introduced when the point estimate from one trial is used to assist the design of a second trial. It is recommended that any observed point estimates be used with caution and the adjustment method developed in this article be implemented to significantly reduce this bias.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  effect size; regression to the mean; target effect size; trials in sequence

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34860471     DOI: 10.1002/pst.2180

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


  1 in total

1.  An investigation of the constancy of effect in Cochrane systematic reviews in context with the assumptions for noninferiority trials.

Authors:  Enass M Duro; Steven A Julious; Shijie Ren
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 4.612

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.