Dataset Information

Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect.

ABSTRACT: Comparative effectiveness research trials in real-world settings may require participants to choose between preferred intervention options. A randomized clinical trial with parallel experimental and control arms is straightforward and regarded as a gold standard design, but by design it forces and anticipates the participants to comply with a randomly assigned intervention regardless of their preference. Therefore, the randomized clinical trial may impose impractical limitations when planning comparative effectiveness research trials. To accommodate participants' preference if they are expressed, and to maintain randomization, we propose an alternative design that allows participants' preference after randomization, which we call a "preference option randomized design (PORD)". In contrast to other preference designs, which ask whether or not participants consent to the assigned intervention after randomization, the crucial feature of preference option randomized design is its unique informed consent process before randomization. Specifically, the preference option randomized design consent process informs participants that they can opt out and switch to the other intervention only if after randomization they actively express the desire to do so. Participants who do not independently express explicit alternate preference or assent to the randomly assigned intervention are considered to not have an alternate preference. In sum, preference option randomized design intends to maximize retention, minimize possibility of forced assignment for any participants, and to maintain randomization by allowing participants with no or equal preference to represent random assignments. This design scheme enables to define five effects that are interconnected with each other through common design parameters-comparative, preference, selection, intent-to-treat, and overall/as-treated-to collectively guide decision making between interventions. Statistical power functions for testing all these effects are derived, and simulations verified the validity of the power functions under normal and binomial distributions.

SUBMITTER: Heo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6834113 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect.

Heo Moonseong M Meissner Paul P Litwin Alain H AH Arnsten Julia H JH McKee M Diane MD Karasz Alison A McKinley Paula P Rehm Colin D CD Chambers Earle C EC Yeh Ming-Chin MC Wylie-Rosett Judith J

Statistical methods in medical research 20171109 2

Comparative effectiveness research trials in real-world settings may require participants to choose between preferred intervention options. A randomized clinical trial with parallel experimental and control arms is straightforward and regarded as a gold standard design, but by design it forces and anticipates the participants to comply with a randomly assigned intervention regardless of their preference. Therefore, the randomized clinical trial may impose impractical limitations when planning co ...[more]

PMID: 29121828

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: data generated using 'omics' technologies are characterized by high dimensionality, where the number of features measured per subject vastly exceeds the number of subjects in the study. In this paper, we consider issues relevant in the design of biomedical studies in which the goal is the discovery of a subset of features and an associated algorithm that can predict a binary outcome, such as disease status. We compare the performance of four commonly used classifiers (K-Nearest Neighbors, Prediction Analysis for Microarrays, Random Forests and Support Vector Machines) in high-dimensionality data settings. We evaluate the effects of varying levels of signal-to-noise ratio in the dataset, imbalance in class distribution and choice of metric for quantifying performance of the classifier. To guide study design, we present a summary of the key characteristics of 'omics' data profiled in several human or animal model experiments utilizing high-content mass spectrometry and multiplexed immunoassay based techniques. RESULTS: the analysis of data from seven 'omics' studies revealed that the average magnitude of effect size observed in human studies was markedly lower when compared to that in animal studies. The data measured in human studies were characterized by higher biological variation and the presence of outliers. The results from simulation studies indicated that the classifier Prediction Analysis for Microarrays (PAM) had the highest power when the class conditional feature distributions were Gaussian and outcome distributions were balanced. Random Forests was optimal when feature distributions were skewed and when class distributions were unbalanced. We provide a free open-source R statistical software library (MVpower) that implements the simulation strategy proposed in this paper. CONCLUSION: no single classifier had optimal performance under all settings. Simulation studies provide useful guidance for the design of biomedical studies involving high-dimensionality data.

Project description:Statistical power is key for robust, replicable science. Here, we systematically explored how numbers of trials and subjects affect statistical power in MEG sensor-level data. More specifically, we simulated "experiments" using the MEG resting-state dataset of the Human Connectome Project (HCP). We divided the data in two conditions, injected a dipolar source at a known anatomical location in the "signal condition", but not in the "noise condition", and detected significant differences at sensor level with classical paired t-tests across subjects, using amplitude, squared amplitude, and global field power (GFP) measures. Group-level detectability of these simulated effects varied drastically with anatomical origin. We thus examined in detail which spatial properties of the sources affected detectability, looking specifically at the distance from closest sensor and orientation of the source, and at the variability of these parameters across subjects. In line with previous single-subject studies, we found that the most detectable effects originate from source locations that are closest to the sensors and oriented tangentially with respect to the head surface. In addition, cross-subject variability in orientation also affected group-level detectability, boosting detection in regions where this variability was small and hindering detection in regions where it was large. Incidentally, we observed a considerable covariation of source position, orientation, and their cross-subject variability in individual brain anatomical space, making it difficult to assess the impact of each of these variables independently of one another. We thus also performed simulations where we controlled spatial properties independently of individual anatomy. These additional simulations confirmed the strong impact of distance and orientation and further showed that orientation variability across subjects affects detectability, whereas position variability does not. Importantly, our study indicates that strict unequivocal recommendations as to the ideal number of trials and subjects for any experiment cannot be realistically provided for neurophysiological studies and should be adapted according to the brain regions under study.

Dataset Information

Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect.

Publications

Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets