跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

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。

分类依据与纠错

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差异估计及治疗效应估计偏差,与因果推断中的实验效应估计相关。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Eva Skovlund
Lars Walloe

序贯临床试验结束后的治疗差异估计

研究问题
序贯临床试验的停止机制可能改变响应分布;试验结束后,通常用于非序贯情形的治疗差异估计方法是否仍然适用?
方法与思路
作者通过随机模拟比较 Whitehead 方法与普通最大似然估计,并考察 Cox 偏差修正及序贯 Wilcoxon 检验后的非序贯估计。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称所比较方法差异较小,Cox 修正更接近期望值;部分非序贯估计在所考察的序贯试验中表现相当或更好。
阅读关注点
核对停止规则、治疗差异定义、模拟分布与评价指标,特别区分偏差改善、估计精度及不同序贯检验下的适用范围。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;模拟条件和数值结果未提供,不能将所报告的比较推广至所有序贯试验。

原文摘要

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.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文