4.5 Article

Improving efficiency of inferences in randomized clinical trials using auxiliary covariates

Journal

BIOMETRICS
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages 707-715

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00976.x

Keywords

covariate adjustment; hypothesis test; k-arm trial; Kruskal-Wallis test; log odds ratio; longitudinal data; semiparametric theory

Funding

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA085848, R01CA051962] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R37AI031789] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA051962-16, R01 CA085848-08A1, R01 CA085848, R01 CA051962, R01 CA085848-07, R01 CA051962-17A1] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIAID NIH HHS [R37 AI031789-17, R37 AI031789-16, R37 AI031789-18, R37 AI031789] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The primary goal of a randomized clinical trial is to make comparisons among two or more treatments. For example, in a two-arm trial with continuous response, the focus may be on the difference in treatment means; with more than two treatments, the comparison may be based on pairwise differences. With binary outcomes, pairwise odds ratios or log odds ratios may be used. In general, comparisons may be based on meaningful parameters in a relevant statistical model. Standard analyses for estimation and testing in this context typically are based on the data collected on response and treatment assignment only. In many trials, auxiliary baseline covariate information may also be available, and it is of interest to exploit these data to improve the efficiency of inferences. Taking a semiparametric theory perspective, we propose a broadly applicable approach to adjustment for auxiliary covariates to achieve more efficient estimators and tests for treatment parameters in the analysis of randomized clinical trials. Simulations and applications demonstrate the performance of the methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available