完全错了

P. Thall
{"title":"完全错了","authors":"P. Thall","doi":"10.1037/e562412009-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter will give examples of particular clinical trial designs that are fundamentally flawed. Each example will illustrate a fairly common practice. The first example is a futility rule that aims to stop accrual to a single-arm trial early if the interim data show that it is unlikely the experimental treatment provides at least a specified level of anti-disease activity. The rule is given in terms of progression-free survival time. An alternative, much more sound, and reliable futility monitoring rule that accounts for each patient’s complete time-to-event follow-up data will be presented. The second example will show how the routine practice of defining patient evaluability can lead one astray when estimating treatment effects, by misrepresenting the actual patient outcomes. The next two examples pertain to the problems of incompletely or vaguely specified safety monitoring rules. The final example shows what can go wrong when one ignores fundamental experimental design issues, including bias and confounding, when evaluating and comparing multiple treatments. As an alternative approach, the family of randomized select-and-test designs will be presented.","PeriodicalId":203063,"journal":{"name":"Statistical Remedies for Medical Researchers","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Just Plain Wrong\",\"authors\":\"P. Thall\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/e562412009-001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter will give examples of particular clinical trial designs that are fundamentally flawed. Each example will illustrate a fairly common practice. The first example is a futility rule that aims to stop accrual to a single-arm trial early if the interim data show that it is unlikely the experimental treatment provides at least a specified level of anti-disease activity. The rule is given in terms of progression-free survival time. An alternative, much more sound, and reliable futility monitoring rule that accounts for each patient’s complete time-to-event follow-up data will be presented. The second example will show how the routine practice of defining patient evaluability can lead one astray when estimating treatment effects, by misrepresenting the actual patient outcomes. The next two examples pertain to the problems of incompletely or vaguely specified safety monitoring rules. The final example shows what can go wrong when one ignores fundamental experimental design issues, including bias and confounding, when evaluating and comparing multiple treatments. As an alternative approach, the family of randomized select-and-test designs will be presented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":203063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistical Remedies for Medical Researchers\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistical Remedies for Medical Researchers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/e562412009-001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistical Remedies for Medical Researchers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e562412009-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章将给出一些有根本缺陷的临床试验设计的例子。每个示例都将说明一个相当常见的实践。第一个例子是无效规则,如果中期数据显示实验性治疗不太可能提供至少指定水平的抗疾病活性,则该规则旨在尽早停止单臂试验的累积。该规则是根据无进展生存时间给出的。将提出另一种更合理、更可靠的无效监测规则,用于记录每个患者到事件的完整随访数据。第二个例子将表明,在评估治疗效果时,定义患者可评估性的常规做法是如何通过歪曲患者的实际结果而使人误入歧途的。接下来的两个例子涉及不完整或模糊指定的安全监测规则的问题。最后一个例子表明,在评估和比较多种治疗时,如果忽略了基本的实验设计问题,包括偏差和混淆,会出现什么问题。作为一种替代方法,我们将介绍一系列随机选择和测试设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Just Plain Wrong
This chapter will give examples of particular clinical trial designs that are fundamentally flawed. Each example will illustrate a fairly common practice. The first example is a futility rule that aims to stop accrual to a single-arm trial early if the interim data show that it is unlikely the experimental treatment provides at least a specified level of anti-disease activity. The rule is given in terms of progression-free survival time. An alternative, much more sound, and reliable futility monitoring rule that accounts for each patient’s complete time-to-event follow-up data will be presented. The second example will show how the routine practice of defining patient evaluability can lead one astray when estimating treatment effects, by misrepresenting the actual patient outcomes. The next two examples pertain to the problems of incompletely or vaguely specified safety monitoring rules. The final example shows what can go wrong when one ignores fundamental experimental design issues, including bias and confounding, when evaluating and comparing multiple treatments. As an alternative approach, the family of randomized select-and-test designs will be presented.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信