Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14709441

The smallpox immunization program compared with clinical research.

Theodore C Bania·Gregory L Almond
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicHealth PersonnelHumansImmunization ProgramsPatient SelectionRisk AssessmentSmallpox VaccineComparative StudyLetter

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Theodore C Bania, Gregory L Almond. 2004. The smallpox immunization program compared with clinical research.. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2003.07.022

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis.

The systematic review community has become increasingly aware of the importance of addressing the issues of heterogeneity and publication bias in meta-analyses. A potentially bigger threat to the validity of a meta-analysis appears relatively unnoticed. The within-study selective reporting of outcomes, defined as the selection of a subset of the original variables recorded for inclusion in publication of trials, can theoretically have a substantial impact on the results. A cohort of meta-analyses on the Cochrane Library was reviewed to examine how often this form of within-study publication bias was suspected and explained some of the evident funnel plot asymmetry. In cases where the level of suspicion was high, sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the robustness of the conclusion to this bias. Although within-study selection was evident or suspected in several trials, the impact on the conclusions of the meta-analyses was minimal. This paper deals with the identification of, sensitivity analysis for, and impact of within-study selective reporting in meta-analysis.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2005

The use of the triangular test with response-adaptive treatment allocation.

A clinical trial is considered in which two treatments with binary responses are to be compared. A popular sequential stopping rule, the triangular test, is studied when various response-adaptive treatment allocation rules are applied, such as the recently proposed drop-the-loser rule, an urn randomization scheme. The paper extends previous work by Coad and Rosenberger, who combined the triangular test with the randomized play-the-winner rule. The purpose of the paper is to investigate to what extent the variability of an adaptive design affects the overall performance of the triangular test. The adaptive rules under consideration are described and some of their asymptotic properties are summarized. Simulation is then used to assess the performance of the triangular test when combined with the various adaptive rules. The main finding is that the drop-the-loser rule is the most promising of the adaptive rules considered in terms of a less variable allocation proportion and a smaller number of treatment failures. The use of this rule with the triangular test is beneficial compared with the triangular test with equal allocation, since it yields fewer treatment failures on average while providing comparable power with similar expected sample size. The results of an AIDS trial are used to illustrate the performance of the triangular test when combined with the drop-the-loser rule.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2005

Statistical design and analysis of pharmacogenetic trials.

Pharmacogenetic trials investigate the effect of genotype on treatment response. When there are two or more treatment groups and two or more genetic groups, investigation of gene-treatment interactions is of key interest. However, calculation of the power to detect such interactions is complicated because this depends not only on the treatment effect size within each genetic group, but also on the number of genetic groups, the size of each genetic group, and the type of genetic effect that is both present and tested for. The scale chosen to measure the magnitude of an interaction can also be problematic, especially for the binary case. Elston et al. proposed a test for detecting the presence of gene-treatment interactions for binary responses, and gave appropriate power calculations. This paper shows how the same approach can also be used for normally distributed responses. We also propose a method for analysing and performing sample size calculations based on a generalized linear model (GLM) approach. The power of the Elston et al. and GLM approaches are compared for the binary and normal case using several illustrative examples. While more sensitive to errors in model specification than the Elston et al. approach, the GLM approach is much more flexible and in many cases more powerful.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗