Optimal allocation of participants for the estimation of selection, preference and treatment effects in the two-stage randomised trial design

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 31, Issue 13, 2012, Pages 1307-1322

  Walter, S D ^a   Turner, R M ^b   Macaskill, P ^b   Mccaffery, K J ^b   Irwig, L ^b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Design; Estimation; Preference effect; Randomised trials; Selection effect

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BIOSTATISTICS; CERVICAL SCREENING; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH SUBJECT; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PATIENT SELECTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84861196089     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4486     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Rucker G. A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effects. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8:477-485.
2. Tilbrook H. Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 2008; 337:a1864.
3. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, Sibbald B, Lai R. Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomized controlled trials. Health. Technology Assessment 2005; 9(35):1-186. iii-iv.
4. Long Q, Little RJ, Lin XH. Causal inference in hybrid intervention trials involving treatment choice. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2008; 103(482):474-484.
5. McCaffery KJ, Turner R, Macaskill P, Walter SD, Foong Chan S, Irwig L. Determining the impact of informed choice: separating treatment effects from the effects of choice and selection in randomised trials. Medical Decision Making 2011; 31:229-236.
6. McCaffery KJ, Irwig L, Turner R, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Lewicka M, Clarke J, Weisberg E, Barratt A. Psychosocial outcomes of three triage methods for the management of borderline abnormal cervical smears: an open randomised trial. British Medical Journal 2010; 340:b4491.
7. Udel JA, Redelmeier DA. Patient Preferences and the Ironic Nature of Randomized Trials. Medical Decision Making 2011; 31:226-228.
8. Cooper KG, Grant AM, Garratt AM. The impact of using a partially randomised patient preference design when evaluating alternative managements for heavy menstrual bleeding. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1997; 104:1367-1373.
9. Cooper KG, Parkin DE, Garratt AM, Grant AM. Two-year follow up of women randomised to medical management or transcervical resection of the endometrium for heavy menstrual loss: clinical and quality of life outcomes. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999; 106(3):258-265.
10. Janevic MR, Janz NK, Dodge JA, Lin X, Pan W, Sinco BR, Clark NM. The role of choice in health education intervention trials: a review and case study. Social Science and Medicine 2003; 56(7):1581-1594.
11. Cohen J.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences: (Revised edition.). Laurence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey, 1988.
12. Noel PH, Larme AC, Meyer J, Marsh G, Correa A, Pugh JA. Patient choice in diabetes education curriculum. Nutritional versus standard content for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998; 21(6):896-901.
13. Rokke PD, Tomhave JA, Jocic Z. The role of client choice and target selection in self-management therapy for depression in older adults. Psychol Aging 1999; 14(1):155-169.
14. Clark NM, Janz NK, Dodge JA, Mosca L, Lin X, Long Q, et al. The effect of patient choice of intervention on health outcomes. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2008; 29(5):679-686.
15. Long Q, Little RJ, Lin XH. Causal inference in hybrid intervention trials involving treatment choice. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2008; 103(482):474-484.
16. 111th United States Congress. HR 3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. No. 111-148, 2010. 906.
17. Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS., 2010. (search for gateway reference: 14835).
18. Edwards A, Elwyn G (eds).Shared Decision Making: Achieving evidence based patient choice. Oxford University Press: New York, 2009.
19. Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine 1979; 300(22):1242-1245.
20. Zelen M. Strategy and alternate randomized designs in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treatment Reports 1982; 66(5):1095-1100.
21. Brewin CR, Bradley C. Patients' preferences and randomized clinical trials. British Medical Journal 1989; 289:313-315.
22. Olschewski M, Scheurlen H. Comprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trial. Methods of Information in Medicine 1985; 24(3):131-134.
23. Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ, Yusuf S, Sackett DL, Cina CS, Walter SD, Haynes B, Schunemann HJ, Norman GR, Guyatt GH. Need for expertise-based randomized controlled trials. British Medical Journal 2005; 330:88-91.
24. Walter SD, Guyatt G, Montori VM, Cook R, Prasad K. A new preference-based analysis for randomized trials can estimate treatment acceptability and effect in compliant patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59(7):685-696.