Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36677. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036677. Epub 2012 May 22.

Assessment and implication of prognostic imbalance in randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome--a simulation study.

Author information

  • 1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. chur@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Chance imbalance in baseline prognosis of a randomized controlled trial can lead to over or underestimation of treatment effects, particularly in trials with small sample sizes. Our study aimed to (1) evaluate the probability of imbalance in a binary prognostic factor (PF) between two treatment arms, (2) investigate the impact of prognostic imbalance on the estimation of a treatment effect, and (3) examine the effect of sample size (n) in relation to the first two objectives.

METHODS:

We simulated data from parallel-group trials evaluating a binary outcome by varying the risk of the outcome, effect of the treatment, power and prevalence of the PF, and n. Logistic regression models with and without adjustment for the PF were compared in terms of bias, standard error, coverage of confidence interval and statistical power.

RESULTS:

For a PF with a prevalence of 0.5, the probability of a difference in the frequency of the PF≥5% reaches 0.42 with 125/arm. Ignoring a strong PF (relative risk = 5) leads to underestimating the strength of a moderate treatment effect, and the underestimate is independent of n when n is >50/arm. Adjusting for such PF increases statistical power. If the PF is weak (RR = 2), adjustment makes little difference in statistical inference. Conditional on a 5% imbalance of a powerful PF, adjustment reduces the likelihood of large bias. If an absolute measure of imbalance ≥5% is deemed important, including 1000 patients/arm provides sufficient protection against such an imbalance. Two thousand patients/arm may provide an adequate control against large random deviations in treatment effect estimation in the presence of a powerful PF.

CONCLUSIONS:

The probability of prognostic imbalance in small trials can be substantial. Covariate adjustment improves estimation accuracy and statistical power, and hence should be performed when strong PFs are observed.

PMID:
22629322
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC3358303
Free PMC Article

Images from this publication.See all images (5)Free text

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk