The simulation-based procedure's ability to capture this effect size fluctuation is advantageous for smaller expected effect sizes, as it is essential to ensure adequate sample size to ensure adequate sample size to avoid a type II error.
Abstract
Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (SMARTs) provide evidence for treatment sequences based on patient profiles, which is relevant in chronic disease settings. Sample size formulae implemented in calculators are the primary tool available to power SMARTs, though they require strong assumptions. We propose a simulation-based procedure omitting these assumptions, instead generating realistic synthetic SMART data by fitting models to real pilot data, to power SMARTs to compare treatment strategies. The proposed framework powers designs in two ways: by fixing the data generating mechanism and estimating effect size under different designs, or by fixing effect size and varying operational decisions within the SMART. Comparing our results to a calculator (SMARTsize), estimated sample sizes at varying power levels were similar at larger fixed effect sizes, whereas a discrepancy was apparent at smaller effect sizes due to differences between fixed and observed effect sizes in the simulated trials. The simulation-based procedure's ability to capture this effect size fluctuation is advantageous for smaller expected effect sizes, as it is essential to ensure adequate sample size to avoid a type II error. In providing flexible tools to power competing SMART designs, the full potential of SMARTs to build treatment sequences can be better realized.
With the rapid emergence of personalized healthcare, adaptive interventions have gained significant traction and relevance. Contemporary research has introduced a sophisticated trial design known as the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) to advance the development of effective adaptive intervention...
Hybrid controlled trials (HCTs) augment randomized controls with external controls (ECs) to address practical challenges in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and improve statistical power in settings such as rare diseases, oncology, and pediatrics. However, prospective sample-size determination is challenging because...
Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for evaluating interventions. For individually randomized trials, clustering can exist in the intervention arm but not the control arm when the intervention is delivered by study personnels and/or in a group setting. This results in a partially nested design, whi...
Kim May Lee, Aritra Mukherjee, R. Emsley· BMC Medical Research Methodo...· 0 citations
We introduce a flexible adaptive design strategy for treatment allocation in clinical trials based on a randomized simulated annealing algorithm. The proposed approach provides a unified and modular framework for implementing a broad range of adaptive randomization objectives, including covariate-adaptive (CA), respons...
Rosamarie Frieri, Francesco Mariani, M. Novelli· Statistical Methods in Medic...· 0 citations
While clinical trials are often regarded as the gold standard by medical researchers and regulatory agencies, the statistical properties of typical randomized controlled trials heavily depend on large sample sizes, which may not always be achievable due to budget constraints or other practical limitations. To address t...
Meng-Hsuan Sung, Qian Xiao, Ye Shen· Statistical Methods in Medic...· 0 citations
A new inference method for conducting multiple-treatment comparisons involving endpoints within the generalized linear model (GLM) framework under covariate-adaptive randomization (CAR) that can effectively control Type I error while potentially improving power.