Literature DB >> 9749447

Multi-centre trial analysis revisited.

A L Gould1.   

Abstract

Analyses of multi-centre trials must consider the effects of the individual centres and the possibility of non-constancy of treatment effect differences among centres. This usually means an ANOVA with terms for centres, treatments, and centre x treatment interactions in practice, at least in the U.S.A. Empirical and conventional Bayes methods provide attractive alternatives to conventional ANOVAs for analysing and reporting the findings from multi-centre trials and do not require more restrictive assumptions than the ANOVA approach. These approaches require regarding the centre effects as random instead of fixed, a view which often will reasonably describe outcomes of clinical trials in spite of the fact that the individual centres certainly do not comprise a random sample of all possible centres. The components of these approaches are well understood and have been employed in related applications such as meta-analysis. Combining them in a way that makes their application to routine multi-centre trial analysis relatively straightforward does not appear to have been described previously, and is what forms the topic of this paper. The empirical Bayes approach leads to useful graphical displays, including one with the data superimposed on probability contours of the joint distribution of the individual centre means and standard deviations, which provides a handy way to identify possible outliers. Covariates can be incorporated without difficulty. The Bayes approach, implemented with Gibbs sampling, provides a convenient way to construct posterior and predictive distributions for a variety of useful statistics. We compare the result of empirical and conventional Bayes analyses with the result of fixed and mixed model ANOVAs applied to data from a multi-centre trial.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9749447     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980815/30)17:15/16<1779::aid-sim979>3.0.co;2-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  8 in total

1.  Association of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders and Hospital Mortality Rate Among Patients With Pneumonia.

Authors:  Allan J Walkey; Janice Weinberg; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Colin R Cooke; Peter K Lindenauer
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  Hospital Variation in Utilization of Life-Sustaining Treatments among Patients with Do Not Resuscitate Orders.

Authors:  Allan J Walkey; Janice Weinberg; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Colin R Cooke; Peter K Lindenauer
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Modeling site effects in the design and analysis of multi-site trials.

Authors:  Daniel J Feaster; Susan Mikulich-Gilbertson; Ahnalee M Brincks
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.829

4.  Sample Size Requirements and Study Duration for Testing Main Effects and Interactions in Completely Randomized Factorial Designs When Time to Event is the Outcome.

Authors:  Barry Kurt Moser; Susan Halabi
Journal:  Commun Stat Theory Methods       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 0.893

5.  Methods for Estimating Center Effects on Recurrent Events.

Authors:  Dandan Liu; John D Kalbfleisch; Douglas E Schaubel
Journal:  Stat Biosci       Date:  2014-05-01

6.  Comparing methods to estimate treatment effects on a continuous outcome in multicentre randomized controlled trials: a simulation study.

Authors:  Rong Chu; Lehana Thabane; Jinhui Ma; Anne Holbrook; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Philip James Devereaux
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-02-21       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Sensitivity of methods for analyzing continuous outcome from stratified cluster randomized trials - an empirical comparison study.

Authors:  Sayem Borhan; Rizwana Mallick; Mershen Pillay; Harsha Kathard; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2019-07-05

8.  Accounting for treatment by center interaction in sample size determinations and the use of surrogate outcomes in the pessary for the prevention of preterm birth trial: a simulation study.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.