ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
A Multi-Stage Drop-the-Loser Design With Superiority Boundaries.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) trials have gained popularity, due to their improved efficiency in evaluating multiple treatments. A traditional MAMS trial often decreases the expected sample size of the trial compared with just running a multi-arm approach, but with the drawback of an increase in maximum sample size. For academic led trials, this poses a particular challenge, as funding is typically based on the maximum required sample size. To address this, drop-the-loser designs were introduced, where a fixed number of treatments are dropped at each interim stage, thereby reducing the maximum sample size. In this work, we propose an enhanced multi-stage drop-the-loser design that also allows for early stopping of the entire trial for superiority. This approach aims to retain the benefits of a reduced maximum sample size while also lowering the expected sample size. The proposed design is motivated by a trial in atrial fibrillation. We derive analytical expressions for the type I error rate, power, and expected sample size, and compare the proposed design's performance to alternative methods. We outline the key requirements for implementing the proposed design and discuss the contexts in which it should be considered. For the motivating example, the results show that the proposed design substantially reduces the expected sample size compared to a standard drop-the-loser design, while lowering the maximum sample size relative to running a traditional MAMS trial or multiple separate trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.