Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
    Trials. 2009 Apr 17;10:21.

    How do multi-stage, multi-arm trials compare to the traditional two-arm parallel group design--a reanalysis of 4 trials.

    Source

    Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. sophie@fm-sbarthel.de

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND:

    To speed up the evaluation of new therapies, the multi-arm, multi-stage trial design was suggested previously by the authors.

    METHODS:

    In this paper, we evaluate the performance of the two-stage, multi-arm design using four cancer trials conducted at the MRC CTU. The performance of the design at fictitious interim analyses is assessed using a conditional bootstrap approach.

    RESULTS:

    Two main aims are addressed: the error rate of correctly carrying on/stopping the trial at an interim analysis as well as quantifying the gains in terms of resources by employing this design. Furthermore, we make suggestions for the best timing of this interim analysis.

    CONCLUSION:

    Multi-arm, multi-stage trials are an effective way of speeding up the therapy evaluation process. The design performs well in terms of the type I and II error rates.

    PMID:
    19374739
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    PMCID:
    PMC2680399
    Free PMC Article

    Images from this publication.See all images (2) Free text

    Figure 2
    Figure 1

      Supplemental Content

      Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central

      Save items

      loading

      Recent activity

      Your browsing activity is empty.

      Activity recording is turned off.

      Turn recording back on

      See more...
      Write to the Help Desk