Does the sliding dichotomy result in higher powered clinical trials for stroke and traumatic brain injury research?

Clinical Trials

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 924-934

  Price, Megan ^a   Hertzberg, Vicki ^b   Wright, David W ^c  

^a Benetech Human Rights Program   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPUTER GRAPHICS; HYPOTHERMIA; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; SLIDING DICHOTOMY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; BRAIN INJURIES; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GLASGOW OUTCOME SCALE; HUMANS; HYPOTHERMIA, INDUCED; LOGISTIC MODELS; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROGNOSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STROKE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84889762348     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774512458601     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Barer D. Could stroke mega-trials be missing important treatment effects?. Poster Presented at the European Stroke Conference ; 1998 Edinburgh, UK ; 1998..
2. Mass AIR, Steyerberg EW, Murray GD, et al. Why have recent trials of neuroprotective agents in head injury failed to show convincing efficacy? A pragmatic analysis and theoretical considerations. Neurosurgery. 1999 ; 44: 1286-98
3. Murray GD, Barer D, Choi S, et al. Design and analysis of phase III trials with ordered outcome scales: The concept of the sliding dichotomy. J Neurotrauma. 2005 ; 22: 511-17
4. McHugh GS, Butcher I, Steyerberg EW, et al. A simulation study evaluating approaches to the analysis of ordinal outcome data in randomized controlled trials in traumatic brain injury: Results from the impact project. Clin Trials. 2010 ; 7: 44-57
5. Young FB, Lees KR, Weir CJ. Strengthening acute stroke trials through optimal use of disability end points. Stroke. 2003 ; 34: 2676-80
6. Clifton GL, Miller ER, Choi SC, et al. Lack of effect of induction of hypothermia after acute brain injury. New Engl J Med. 2001 ; 344: 556-63
7. Perel P, Edwards P, Wentz R, Roberts Ian. Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006 ; 6: 38
8. Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS, et al. Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: Results from the impact study. J Neurotrauma. 2007 ; 24: 329-37
9. Hukkelhoven CWPM, Steyerberg EW, Habbema DF, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: Development and validation of a prognostic score based on admission characteristics. J Neurotrauma. 2005 ; 22: 1025-39
10. Hansen BB. Matching with prognosis scores: A new method of adjustment for comparative studies. Oral Presentation at Winemiller 2006 Conference ; 2006 University of Missouri, Columbia, MO ; 2006..
11. Narayan RK, Michel ME. The Clinical Trials in Head Injury Study Group. Clinical trials in head injury. J Neurotrauma. 2002 ; 19: 503-57
12. Choi SC. Sample size in clinical trials with dichotomous endpoints: Use of covariables. J Biopharm Stat. 1998 ; 8: 367-75
13. Hernandez AV, Steyerberg EW, Butcher I, et al. Adjustment for strong predictors of outcome in traumatic brain injury trials: 25% reduction in sample size requirements in the impact study. J Neurotrauma. 2006 ; 23: 1295-303
14. Machado SG, Murray GD, Teasdale GM. Evaluation of designs for clinical trials of neuroprotective agents in head injury. J Neurotrauma. 1999 ; 16: 1131-38
15. Mendelow DA, Gregson BA, Fernandes HM, et al. Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haematomas in the international Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH): A randomized trial. Lancet. 2005 ; 365: 387-97