在立体视力结果的随机临床试验中使用早期失败标准时的偏倚风险。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Meet Panjwani, Jonathan M Holmes
{"title":"在立体视力结果的随机临床试验中使用早期失败标准时的偏倚风险。","authors":"Meet Panjwani, Jonathan M Holmes","doi":"10.1167/tvst.13.12.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of early failure criteria for participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on overall trial conclusions.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We simulated 10,000 hypothetical RCTs with 2 treatments, 1 linear improvement and 1 with increasing rate of improvement and 6 follow-up visits. Each RCT had 400 participants, with the same baseline stereoacuity distribution. We incorporated random test-retest noise for every visit, and scores were rounded to the nearest observable score. Early failure was defined as worsening of two or more levels. We compared mean outcome stereoacuity between treatment groups, with and without the failure rule, using the two-sample t-test and the proportion of erroneous RCTs (significantly different mean outcome values, where truth is known to be no different). Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the influence of sample size, baseline distribution of stereoacuity, overall magnitude of mean improvement, magnitude of change for the failure rule, and distribution of noise.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A greater proportion of 10,000 simulated RCTs had an erroneous mean difference in outcome with the early failure rule than without (5.49%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.05% to 5.94% vs. 0, 0%, 95% CI = 0% to 0.000001%, difference 5.49%, P < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis revealed that increased sample size and wider distribution of noise had the greatest influence on increasing proportions of erroneous RCT conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Study designs incorporating participant-level early failure rules increase the risk of erroneous RCT conclusions and should be avoided.</p><p><strong>Translational relevance: </strong>We provide data informing the design of future clinical trials. Earlier failure rules at the participant level should be avoided.</p>","PeriodicalId":23322,"journal":{"name":"Translational Vision Science & Technology","volume":"13 12","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11614026/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of Bias When Using Early Failure Criteria in Randomized Clinical Trials With Stereoacuity Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Meet Panjwani, Jonathan M Holmes\",\"doi\":\"10.1167/tvst.13.12.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of early failure criteria for participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on overall trial conclusions.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We simulated 10,000 hypothetical RCTs with 2 treatments, 1 linear improvement and 1 with increasing rate of improvement and 6 follow-up visits. Each RCT had 400 participants, with the same baseline stereoacuity distribution. We incorporated random test-retest noise for every visit, and scores were rounded to the nearest observable score. Early failure was defined as worsening of two or more levels. We compared mean outcome stereoacuity between treatment groups, with and without the failure rule, using the two-sample t-test and the proportion of erroneous RCTs (significantly different mean outcome values, where truth is known to be no different). Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the influence of sample size, baseline distribution of stereoacuity, overall magnitude of mean improvement, magnitude of change for the failure rule, and distribution of noise.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A greater proportion of 10,000 simulated RCTs had an erroneous mean difference in outcome with the early failure rule than without (5.49%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.05% to 5.94% vs. 0, 0%, 95% CI = 0% to 0.000001%, difference 5.49%, P < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis revealed that increased sample size and wider distribution of noise had the greatest influence on increasing proportions of erroneous RCT conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Study designs incorporating participant-level early failure rules increase the risk of erroneous RCT conclusions and should be avoided.</p><p><strong>Translational relevance: </strong>We provide data informing the design of future clinical trials. Earlier failure rules at the participant level should be avoided.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Vision Science & Technology\",\"volume\":\"13 12\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11614026/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Vision Science & Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.13.12.1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Vision Science & Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.13.12.1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是探讨随机临床试验(rct)参与者早期失败标准对总体试验结论的影响。方法:模拟1万组随机对照试验,2组治疗,1组线性改善,1组改善率增加,6组随访。每个RCT有400名参与者,具有相同的基线立体视敏度分布。我们将每次访问的随机重测噪声纳入其中,并将得分四舍五入到最接近的可观察得分。早期衰竭被定义为两级或两级以上的恶化。我们使用双样本t检验和错误rct的比例(平均结果值显著不同,其中真理已知没有差异),比较了有和没有失败规则的治疗组之间的平均结果立体锐度。进行敏感性分析以探讨样本量、立体敏锐度基线分布、平均改善的总体幅度、失效规则的变化幅度和噪声分布的影响。结果:在10,000个模拟rct中,有早期失效规则的结果平均误差比没有早期失效规则的结果平均误差大(5.49%,95%置信区间[CI] = 5.05% ~ 5.94%比0,0%,95% CI = 0% ~ 0.000001%,差5.49%,P < 0.0001)。敏感性分析显示,样本量的增加和噪声分布的扩大对RCT错误结论比例的增加影响最大。结论:纳入参与者水平早期失败规则的研究设计增加了错误RCT结论的风险,应避免。翻译相关性:我们为未来临床试验的设计提供数据。应该避免参与者级别的早期故障规则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk of Bias When Using Early Failure Criteria in Randomized Clinical Trials With Stereoacuity Outcomes.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of early failure criteria for participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on overall trial conclusions.

Method: We simulated 10,000 hypothetical RCTs with 2 treatments, 1 linear improvement and 1 with increasing rate of improvement and 6 follow-up visits. Each RCT had 400 participants, with the same baseline stereoacuity distribution. We incorporated random test-retest noise for every visit, and scores were rounded to the nearest observable score. Early failure was defined as worsening of two or more levels. We compared mean outcome stereoacuity between treatment groups, with and without the failure rule, using the two-sample t-test and the proportion of erroneous RCTs (significantly different mean outcome values, where truth is known to be no different). Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the influence of sample size, baseline distribution of stereoacuity, overall magnitude of mean improvement, magnitude of change for the failure rule, and distribution of noise.

Results: A greater proportion of 10,000 simulated RCTs had an erroneous mean difference in outcome with the early failure rule than without (5.49%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.05% to 5.94% vs. 0, 0%, 95% CI = 0% to 0.000001%, difference 5.49%, P < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis revealed that increased sample size and wider distribution of noise had the greatest influence on increasing proportions of erroneous RCT conclusions.

Conclusions: Study designs incorporating participant-level early failure rules increase the risk of erroneous RCT conclusions and should be avoided.

Translational relevance: We provide data informing the design of future clinical trials. Earlier failure rules at the participant level should be avoided.

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
Translational Vision Science & Technology
Translational Vision Science & Technology Engineering-Biomedical Engineering
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
346
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: Translational Vision Science & Technology (TVST), an official journal of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), an international organization whose purpose is to advance research worldwide into understanding the visual system and preventing, treating and curing its disorders, is an online, open access, peer-reviewed journal emphasizing multidisciplinary research that bridges the gap between basic research and clinical care. A highly qualified and diverse group of Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members is led by Editor-in-Chief Marco Zarbin, MD, PhD, FARVO. The journal covers a broad spectrum of work, including but not limited to: Applications of stem cell technology for regenerative medicine, Development of new animal models of human diseases, Tissue bioengineering, Chemical engineering to improve virus-based gene delivery, Nanotechnology for drug delivery, Design and synthesis of artificial extracellular matrices, Development of a true microsurgical operating environment, Refining data analysis algorithms to improve in vivo imaging technology, Results of Phase 1 clinical trials, Reverse translational ("bedside to bench") research. TVST seeks manuscripts from scientists and clinicians with diverse backgrounds ranging from basic chemistry to ophthalmic surgery that will advance or change the way we understand and/or treat vision-threatening diseases. TVST encourages the use of color, multimedia, hyperlinks, program code and other digital enhancements.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信