Successful Randomized Trials

This handbook is a ready reference on the theory and operation of modern large, multicenter randomized clinical trials, which have come to be the basis of evidence-based medicine. Written in a concise, engaging style geared to physicians, the book explains the rationale and theoretical foundations for clinical trials, the components of modern clinical trials including their functions and interactions, and practical considerations in the design and implementation of these studies including an introduction to the economics and business aspects.

Praise for the First Edition “All medical statisticians involved in clinical trials should read this book…” - Controlled Clinical Trials Featuring a unique combination of the applied aspects of randomization in clinical trials with a nonparametric approach to inference, Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice, Second Edition is the go-to guide for biostatisticians and pharmaceutical industry statisticians. Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice, Second Edition features: Discussions on current philosophies, controversies, and new developments in the increasingly important role of randomization techniques in clinical trials A new chapter on covariate-adaptive randomization, including minimization techniques and inference New developments in restricted randomization and an increased focus on computation of randomization tests as opposed to the asymptotic theory of randomization tests Plenty of problem sets, theoretical exercises, and short computer simulations using SAS® to facilitate classroom teaching, simplify the mathematics, and ease readers’ understanding Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice, Second Edition is an excellent reference for researchers as well as applied statisticians and biostatisticians. The Second Edition is also an ideal textbook for upper-undergraduate and graduate-level courses in biostatistics and applied statistics. William F. Rosenberger, PhD, is University Professor and Chairman of the Department of Statistics at George Mason University. He is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, and author of over 80 refereed journal articles, as well as The Theory of Response-Adaptive Randomization in Clinical Trials, also published by Wiley. John M. Lachin, ScD, is Research Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics as well as in the Department of Statistics at The George Washington University. A Fellow of the American Statistical Association and the Society for Clinical Trials, Dr. Lachin is actively involved in coordinating center activities for clinical trials of diabetes. He is the author of Biostatistical Methods: The Assessment of Relative Risks, Second Edition, also published by Wiley.

"IEA, International Epidemiological Association, Welcome Trust."

A compendium of cutting-edge statistical approaches to solving problems in clinical oncology, Handbook of Statistics in Clinical Oncology, Second Edition focuses on clinical trials in phases I, II, and III, proteomic and genomic studies, complementary outcomes and exploratory methods. Cancer Forum called the first edition a

The internal validity of a study reflects the extent to which the design and conduct of the study have prevented bias(es). One of the key steps in a systematic review is assessment of a study's internal validity, or potential for bias. This assessment serves to: (1) identify the strengths and limitations of the included studies; (2) investigate, and potentially explain heterogeneity in findings across different studies included in a systematic review; and (3) grade the strength of evidence for a given question. The risk of bias assessment directly informs one of four key domains considered when assessing the strength of evidence. With the increase in the number of published systematic reviews and development of systematic review methodology over the past 15 years, close attention has been paid to the methods for assessing internal validity. Until recently this has been referred to as “quality assessment” or “assessment of methodological quality.” In this context “quality” refers to “the confidence that the trial design, conduct, and analysis has minimized or avoided biases in its treatment comparisons.” To facilitate the assessment of methodological quality, a plethora of tools has emerged. Some of these tools were developed for specific study designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies), while others were intended to be applied to a range of designs. The tools often incorporate characteristics that may be associated with bias; however, many tools also contain elements related to reporting (e.g., was the study population described) and design (e.g., was a sample size calculation performed) that are not related to bias. The Cochrane Collaboration recently developed a tool to assess the potential risk of bias in RCTs. The Risk of Bias (ROB) tool was developed to address some of the shortcomings of existing quality assessment instruments, including over-reliance on reporting rather than methods. Several systematic reviews have catalogued and critiqued the numerous tools available to assess methodological quality, or risk of bias of primary studies. In summary, few existing tools have undergone extensive inter-rater reliability or validity testing. Moreover, the focus of much of the tool development or testing that has been done has been on criterion or face validity. Therefore it is unknown whether, or to what extent, the summary assessments based on these tools differentiate between studies with biased and unbiased results (i.e., studies that may over- or underestimate treatment effects). There is a clear need for inter-rater reliability testing of different tools in order to enhance consistency in their application and interpretation across different systematic reviews. Further, validity testing is essential to ensure that the tools being used can identify studies with biased results. Finally, there is a need to determine inter-rater reliability and validity in order to support the uptake and use of individual tools that are recommended by the systematic review community, and specifically the ROB tool within the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program. In this project we focused on two tools that are commonly used in systematic reviews. The Cochrane ROB tool was designed for RCTs and is the instrument recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration for use in systematic reviews of RCTs. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is commonly used for nonrandomized studies, specifically cohort and case-control studies.

Clinical trials are used to elucidate the most appropriate preventive, diagnostic, or treatment options for individuals with a given medical condition. Perhaps the most essential feature of a clinical trial is that it aims to use results based on a limited sample of research participants to see if the intervention is safe and effective or if it is comparable to a comparison treatment. Sample size is a crucial component of any clinical trial. A trial with a small number of research participants is more prone to variability and carries a considerable risk of failing to demonstrate the effectiveness of a given intervention when one really is present. This may occur in phase I (safety and pharmacologic profiles), II (pilot efficacy evaluation), and III (extensive assessment of safety and efficacy) trials. Although phase I and II studies may have smaller sample sizes, they usually have adequate statistical power, which is the committee's definition of a "large" trial. Sometimes a trial with eight participants may have adequate statistical power, statistical power being the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the hypothesis is false. Small Clinical Trials assesses the current methodologies and the appropriate situations for the conduct of clinical trials with small sample sizes. This report assesses the published literature on various strategies such as (1) meta-analysis to combine disparate information from several studies including Bayesian techniques as in the confidence profile method and (2) other alternatives such as assessing therapeutic results in a single treated population (e.g., astronauts) by sequentially measuring whether the intervention is falling above or below a preestablished probability outcome range and meeting predesigned specifications as opposed to incremental improvement.

Cluster Randomised Trials, Second Edition discusses the design, conduct, and analysis of trials that randomise groups of individuals to different treatments. It explores the advantages of cluster randomisation, with special attention given to evaluating the effects of interventions against infectious diseases. Avoiding unnecessary mathematical detail, the book covers basic concepts underlying the use of cluster randomisation, such as direct, indirect, and total effects. In the time since the publication of the first edition, the use of cluster randomised trials (CRTs) has increased substantially, which is reflected in the updates to this edition. There are greatly expanded sections on randomisation, sample size estimation, and alternative designs, including new material on stepped wedge designs. There is a new section on handling ordinal outcome data, and an appendix with descriptions and/or generating code of the example data sets. Although the book mainly focuses on medical and public health applications, it shows that the rigorous evidence of intervention effects provided by CRTs has the potential to inform public policy in a wide range of other areas. The book encourages readers to apply the methods to their own trials, reproduce the analyses presented, and explore alternative approaches.

In October 2019, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer jointly won the 51st Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty. But what is the exact scope of their experimental method, known as randomized control trials (RCTs)? Which sorts of questions are RCTs able to address and which do they fail to answer? The first of its kind, Randomized Control Trials in the Field of Development: A Critical Perspective provides answers to these questions, explaining how RCTs work, what they can achieve, why they sometimes fail, how they can be improved and why other methods are both useful and necessary. Bringing together leading specialists in the field from a range of backgrounds and disciplines (economics, econometrics, mathematics, statistics, political economy, socioeconomics, anthropology, philosophy, global health, epidemiology, and medicine), it presents a full and coherent picture of the main strengths and weaknesses of RCTs in the field of development. Looking beyond the epistemological, political, and ethical differences underlying many of the disagreements surrounding RCTs, it explores the implementation of RCTs on the ground, outside of their ideal theoretical conditions and reveals some unsuspected uses and effects, their disruptive potential, but also their political uses. The contributions uncover the implicit worldview that many RCTs draw on and disseminate, and probe the gap between the method's narrow scope and its success, while also proposing improvements and alternatives. Without disputing the contribution of RCTs to scientific knowledge, Randomized Control Trials in the Field of Development warns against the potential dangers of their excessive use, arguing that the best use for RCTs is not necessarily that which immediately springs to mind. Written in plain language, this book offers experts and laypeople alike a unique opportunity to come to an informed and reasoned judgement on RCTs and what they can bring to development.