Estimation of Treatment Difference following a Sequential Clinical Trial
序贯临床试验结束后的治疗差异估计AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接研究临床试验中的治疗效应及治疗差异估计,属于干预效果推断的相关方法。
序贯临床试验结束后的治疗差异估计AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
To reduce the number of patients needed to reach a conclusion in a clinical trial, a sequential trial design may be used. In theory the distribution of responses is biased when a sequential trial is stopped. The usual estimation methods of treatment difference applied in nonsequential situations are, therefore, not necessarily applicable following a sequential test. Whitehead (1983) proposed a method for estimating the treatment effect following some types of two-sample sequential tests. By stochastic simulation we compared this method with an ordinary maximum likelihood estimator for nonsequential two-sample situations, following two different sequential tests. The results show that there is little difference between the methods, although Whitehead's method was developed especially for sequential plans. A correction of the bias of the maximum likelihood estimate proposed by Cox (1952), however, gives results that are much closer to the expected values. We also investigated the estimation of treatment difference following a two-sample sequential Wilcoxon test proposed by Skovlund and Walløe (1988). The (nonsequential) estimation methods applied following this test give good results over a range of distributions and for various real treatment differences. This article advocates a class of nonsequential estimators that has generally been considered inappropriate for sequential trials. Simulations demonstrate that these nonsequential estimators are as good as (and in some situations better than) the sequential estimator developed by Whitehead.