Improving precision by adjusting for prognostic baseline variables in randomized trials with binary outcomes, without regression model assumptions

Jon Arni Steingrimsson, Daniel F Hanley, Michael Aaron Rosenblum

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In randomized clinical trials with baseline variables that are prognostic for the primary outcome, there is potential to improve precision and reduce sample size by appropriately adjusting for these variables. A major challenge is that there are multiple statistical methods to adjust for baseline variables, but little guidance on which is best to use in a given context. The choice of method can have important consequences. For example, one commonly used method leads to uninterpretable estimates if there is any treatment effect heterogeneity, which would jeopardize the validity of trial conclusions. We give practical guidance on how to avoid this problem, while retaining the advantages of covariate adjustment. This can be achieved by using simple (but less well-known) standardization methods from the recent statistics literature. We discuss these methods and give software in R and Stata implementing them. A data example from a recent stroke trial is used to illustrate these methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)18-24
Number of pages7
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials
Volume54
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Sample Size
Software
Randomized Controlled Trials
Stroke

Keywords

  • Covariate adjustment
  • Post-stratification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

@article{df783515b6ff453ab1d9927cab7326b4,
title = "Improving precision by adjusting for prognostic baseline variables in randomized trials with binary outcomes, without regression model assumptions",
abstract = "In randomized clinical trials with baseline variables that are prognostic for the primary outcome, there is potential to improve precision and reduce sample size by appropriately adjusting for these variables. A major challenge is that there are multiple statistical methods to adjust for baseline variables, but little guidance on which is best to use in a given context. The choice of method can have important consequences. For example, one commonly used method leads to uninterpretable estimates if there is any treatment effect heterogeneity, which would jeopardize the validity of trial conclusions. We give practical guidance on how to avoid this problem, while retaining the advantages of covariate adjustment. This can be achieved by using simple (but less well-known) standardization methods from the recent statistics literature. We discuss these methods and give software in R and Stata implementing them. A data example from a recent stroke trial is used to illustrate these methods.",
keywords = "Covariate adjustment, Post-stratification",
author = "Steingrimsson, {Jon Arni} and Hanley, {Daniel F} and Rosenblum, {Michael Aaron}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cct.2016.12.026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "54",
pages = "18--24",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials",
issn = "1551-7144",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving precision by adjusting for prognostic baseline variables in randomized trials with binary outcomes, without regression model assumptions

AU - Steingrimsson, Jon Arni

AU - Hanley, Daniel F

AU - Rosenblum, Michael Aaron

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - In randomized clinical trials with baseline variables that are prognostic for the primary outcome, there is potential to improve precision and reduce sample size by appropriately adjusting for these variables. A major challenge is that there are multiple statistical methods to adjust for baseline variables, but little guidance on which is best to use in a given context. The choice of method can have important consequences. For example, one commonly used method leads to uninterpretable estimates if there is any treatment effect heterogeneity, which would jeopardize the validity of trial conclusions. We give practical guidance on how to avoid this problem, while retaining the advantages of covariate adjustment. This can be achieved by using simple (but less well-known) standardization methods from the recent statistics literature. We discuss these methods and give software in R and Stata implementing them. A data example from a recent stroke trial is used to illustrate these methods.

AB - In randomized clinical trials with baseline variables that are prognostic for the primary outcome, there is potential to improve precision and reduce sample size by appropriately adjusting for these variables. A major challenge is that there are multiple statistical methods to adjust for baseline variables, but little guidance on which is best to use in a given context. The choice of method can have important consequences. For example, one commonly used method leads to uninterpretable estimates if there is any treatment effect heterogeneity, which would jeopardize the validity of trial conclusions. We give practical guidance on how to avoid this problem, while retaining the advantages of covariate adjustment. This can be achieved by using simple (but less well-known) standardization methods from the recent statistics literature. We discuss these methods and give software in R and Stata implementing them. A data example from a recent stroke trial is used to illustrate these methods.

KW - Covariate adjustment

KW - Post-stratification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009223747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85009223747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2016.12.026

DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2016.12.026

M3 - Article

C2 - 28064029

AN - SCOPUS:85009223747

VL - 54

SP - 18

EP - 24

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials

SN - 1551-7144

ER -