Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34074263›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Randomized test-treatment studies with an outlook on adaptive designs.

Amra Hot, Patrick M Bossuyt, Oke Gerke, Simone Wahl, Werner Vach, Antonia Zapf

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Amra HotInstitute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, Hamburg, 20246, Germany. a.hot@uke.de.
Patrick M BossuytDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands.
Oke GerkeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsløws Vej 4, Odense C, 5000, Denmark.
Simone WahlRoche Diagnostics GmbH, Nonnenwald 2, Penzberg, 82377, Germany.
Werner Vach *Basel Academy for Quality and Research in Medicine, Steinenring 6, Basel, 4051, Switzerland.
Antonia Zapf *Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, Hamburg, 20246, Germany.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLOdense University Hospital · DKRoche Pharma AG (Germany) · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ZA 687/1-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic accuracy studies aim to examine the diagnostic accuracy of a new experimental test, but do not address the actual merit of the resulting diagnostic information to a patient in clinical practice. In order to assess the impact of diagnostic information on subsequent treatment strategies regarding patient-relevant outcomes, randomized test-treatment studies were introduced. Various designs for randomized test-treatment studies, including an evaluation of biomarkers as part of randomized biomarker-guided treatment studies, are suggested in the literature, but the nomenclature is not consistent.

methodsThe aim was to provide a clear description of the different study designs within a pre-specified framework, considering their underlying assumptions, advantages as well as limitations and derivation of effect sizes required for sample size calculations. Furthermore, an outlook on adaptive designs within randomized test-treatment studies is given.

resultsThe need to integrate adaptive design procedures in randomized test-treatment studies is apparent. The derivation of effect sizes induces that sample size calculation will always be based on rather vague assumptions resulting in over- or underpowered study results. Therefore, it might be advantageous to conduct a sample size re-estimation based on a nuisance parameter during the ongoing trial.

conclusionsDue to their increased complexity, compared to common treatment trials, the implementation of randomized test-treatment studies poses practical challenges including a huge uncertainty regarding study parameters like the expected outcome in specific subgroups or disease prevalence which might affect the sample size calculation. Since research on adaptive designs within randomized test-treatment studies is limited so far, further research is recommended.

Indexed as

Research DesignCausalityHumansSample SizeTreatment OutcomeUncertaintyAccuracyAdaptive designDiagnostic researchPatient-relevant outcomeRCTSample sizeTest-treatment

Identifiers

PMID34074263
PMCPMC8167391
OpenAlexW3165393643

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.