Evidence mapPaperPMID 41834608Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

Clinical Trial Simulation: Planning With the OCTAVE Framework, Implementation and Validation Principles.

Kim May Lee, Babak Choodari-Oskooei, Michael J Grayling, Peter Jacko, Peter K Kimani, Aritra Mukherjee, Philip Pallmann, Tom Parke, David S Robertson, Ziyan Wang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

12 authors.

Kim May LeeDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Babak Choodari-OskooeiMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7679-5899
Michael J GraylingStatistics and Decision Sciences, Johnson & Johnson, High Wycombe, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0680-6668
Peter JackoLancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Peter K KimaniWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Aritra MukherjeePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4531-6047
Philip PallmannCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8274-9696
Tom ParkeBerry Consultants, Abingdon, UK.
David S RobertsonMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6207-0416
Ziyan WangStatistical Sciences Research Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Christina YapClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Thomas JakiMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

HCRW_National Institute for Health Research NIHR300051National Institute for Health Research NIHR301614UK Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/14UK Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004_09UK Medical Research Council MC_UU_00040/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The adoption of complex innovative clinical trial designs has steadily increased in recent years. These are trial designs that have one or more unconventional features-often resulting in multiple stages-with the goal of improving on conventional single-stage, fixed-setting designs in terms of efficiency, for example, by reducing the required sample size or the time to establish findings about an intervention. The motivation for these designs may not be difficult to follow, but their set-up and implementation is usually more challenging. Statistical properties of these designs can also be difficult to compute. Clinical trial simulation (CTS), which uses software to generate artificial data for learning, can be conducted to identify the (optimal) setting of a clinical trial, evaluate the design's statistical properties under some hypothetical scenarios for sensitivity analysis, and compare different design set-ups and data analysis strategies, all of which contribute to a better understanding of the value of unconventional features before implementing the design in an actual clinical trial. Existing literature on simulation primarily focuses on the evaluation of statistical analysis methods, with less attention on the detailed specification and planning of CTS. This tutorial presents a new framework, called OCTAVE, for outlining the details of CTS, provides practical recommendations for their implementation, and addresses key computational considerations. The target audience is trial statisticians who are involved in designing and analyzing clinical trials. This tutorial covers a range of complex innovative designs, without the expectation that readers are familiar with the mentioned examples.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationResearch DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalSample SizeSoftwareadaptive designclinical trial simulationcomplex innovative designscomputationgraphical toolsmaster protocol

Identifiers

PMID41834608
PMCPMC12989786

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.