Literature DB >> 9620808

Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials?

W W Hauck1, S Anderson, S M Marcus.   

Abstract

The analyses of the primary objectives of randomized clinical trials often are not adjusted for covariates, except possibly for stratification variables. For analyses with linear models, adjustment is a precision issue only. We review the literature regarding logistic and Cox (proportional hazards) regression models. For these nonlinear analyses, omitting covariates from the analysis of randomized trials leads to a loss of efficiency as well as a change in the treatment effect being estimated. We recommend that the primary analyses adjust for important prognostic covariates in order to come as close as possible to the clinically most relevant subject-specific measure of treatment effect. Additional benefits would be an increase in efficiency of tests for no treatment effect and improved external validity. The latter is particularly relevant to meta-analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9620808     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00147-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  60 in total

1.  Overcoming underpowering: Trial simulations and a global rank end point to optimize clinical trials in children with heart disease.

Authors:  Kevin D Hill; H Scott Baldwin; David P Bichel; Alicia M Ellis; Eric M Graham; Christoph P Hornik; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Robert D B Jaquiss; Marshall L Jacobs; Prince J Kannankeril; Jennifer S Li; Rachel Torok; Joseph W Turek; Sean M O'Brien
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 4.749

2.  Covariate adjustment increased power in randomized controlled trials: an example in traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Turner; Pablo Perel; Tim Clayton; Phil Edwards; Adrian V Hernández; Ian Roberts; Haleema Shakur; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Quantifying the cost in power of ignoring continuous covariate imbalances in clinical trial randomization.

Authors:  Jody Ciolino; Wenle Zhao; Renee' Martin; Yuko Palesch
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  Analytic strategies to adjust confounding using exposure propensity scores and disease risk scores: nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and short-term mortality in the elderly.

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Sebastian Schneeweiss; M Alan Brookhart; Kenneth J Rothman; Jerry Avorn; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Combining adjusted and unadjusted findings in mixed research synthesis.

Authors:  Corrine I Voils; Jamie L Crandell; YunKyung Chang; Jennifer Leeman; Margarete Sandelowski
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  Educational inequalities in late-life depression across Europe: results from the generations and gender survey.

Authors:  Thomas Hansen; Britt Slagsvold; Marijke Veenstra
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2017-03-27

7.  Efficiency improvement in a class of survival models through model-free covariate incorporation.

Authors:  Tanya P Garcia; Yanyuan Ma; Guosheng Yin
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 1.588

8.  Association of Nausea and Vomiting During Pregnancy With Pregnancy Loss: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Stefanie N Hinkle; Sunni L Mumford; Katherine L Grantz; Robert M Silver; Emily M Mitchell; Lindsey A Sjaarda; Rose G Radin; Neil J Perkins; Noya Galai; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 9.  Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review.

Authors:  Ly-Mee Yu; An-Wen Chan; Sally Hopewell; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices.

Authors:  Anthony J Avery; Sarah Rodgers; Judith A Cantrill; Sarah Armstrong; Rachel Elliott; Rachel Howard; Denise Kendrick; Caroline J Morris; Scott A Murray; Robin J Prescott; Kathrin Cresswell; Aziz Sheikh
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.