Leveraging prognostic baseline variables to gain precision in randomized trials
- PMID: 25872751
- PMCID: PMC5018399
- DOI: 10.1002/sim.6507
Leveraging prognostic baseline variables to gain precision in randomized trials
Erratum in
-
Correction.Stat Med. 2017 Nov 30;36(27):4419. doi: 10.1002/sim.7438. Epub 2017 Aug 16. Stat Med. 2017. PMID: 29110373 No abstract available.
Abstract
We focus on estimating the average treatment effect in a randomized trial. If baseline variables are correlated with the outcome, then appropriately adjusting for these variables can improve precision. An example is the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) estimator, which applies when the outcome is continuous, the quantity of interest is the difference in mean outcomes comparing treatment versus control, and a linear model with only main effects is used. ANCOVA is guaranteed to be at least as precise as the standard unadjusted estimator, asymptotically, under no parametric model assumptions and also is locally semiparametric efficient. Recently, several estimators have been developed that extend these desirable properties to more general settings that allow any real-valued outcome (e.g., binary or count), contrasts other than the difference in mean outcomes (such as the relative risk), and estimators based on a large class of generalized linear models (including logistic regression). To the best of our knowledge, we give the first simulation study in the context of randomized trials that compares these estimators. Furthermore, our simulations are not based on parametric models; instead, our simulations are based on resampling data from completed randomized trials in stroke and HIV in order to assess estimator performance in realistic scenarios. We provide practical guidance on when these estimators are likely to provide substantial precision gains and describe a quick assessment method that allows clinical investigators to determine whether these estimators could be useful in their specific trial contexts.
Keywords: prognostic variables; randomized trial; relative efficiency.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
References
-
- Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000;355:1064–1069. - PubMed
-
- Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Statistics in Medicine. 2002;21(19):2917–2930. - PubMed
-
- Yang L, Tsiatis AA. Effciency study of estimators for a treatment effect in a pretest–posttest trial. The American Statistician. 2001;55:314–321.
-
- Tan Z. Bounded, efficient and doubly robust estimating equations for marginal and nested structural models. Biometrika. 2010;97:661–682.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical