4.4 Article

The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies

期刊

TRIALS
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-139

关键词

Adjusted analysis; clinical trial; covariate adjustment; power; randomized controlled trial; regression

资金

  1. MRC [MC_EX_G0800814, MC_U122870183] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_EX_G0800814, MC_U122870183] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U122870183, MC_EX_G0800814] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2013-13-008] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Adjustment for prognostic covariates can lead to increased power in the analysis of randomized trials. However, adjusted analyses are not often performed in practice. Methods: We used simulation to examine the impact of covariate adjustment on 12 outcomes from 8 studies across a range of therapeutic areas. We assessed (1) how large an increase in power can be expected in practice; and (2) the impact of adjustment for covariates that are not prognostic. Results: Adjustment for known prognostic covariates led to large increases in power for most outcomes. When power was set to 80% based on an unadjusted analysis, covariate adjustment led to a median increase in power to 92.6% across the 12 outcomes (range 80.6 to 99.4%). Power was increased to over 85% for 8 of 12 outcomes, and to over 95% for 5 of 12 outcomes. Conversely, the largest decrease in power from adjustment for covariates that were not prognostic was from 80% to 78.5%. Conclusions: Adjustment for known prognostic covariates can lead to substantial increases in power, and should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of randomized trials. The potential benefits of adjusting for a small number of possibly prognostic covariates in trials with moderate or large sample sizes far outweigh the risks of doing so, and so should also be considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据