Barthel, FM-S; Parmar, MKB; Royston, P; (2009) How do multi-stage, multi-arm trials compare to the traditional two-arm parallel group design - a reanalysis of 4 trials. Trials , 10 , Article 21. 10.1186/1745-6215-10-21.

Preview	PDF 1745-6215-10-21.pdf Download (306kB)
Preview	PDF (Additional file 1: Appendix: worked example) 1745-6215-10-21-s1.pdf Download (45kB)

Abstract

Background To speed up the evaluation of new therapies, the multi-arm, multi-stage trial design was suggested previously by the authors. Methods In this paper, we evaluate the performance of the two-stage, multi-arm design using four cancer trials conducted at the MRC CTU. The performance of the design at fictitious interim analyses is assessed using a conditional bootstrap approach. Results Two main aims are addressed: the error rate of correctly carrying on/stopping the trial at an interim analysis as well as quantifying the gains in terms of resources by employing this design. Furthermore, we make suggestions for the best timing of this interim analysis. Conclusion Multi-arm, multi-stage trials are an effective way of speeding up the therapy evaluation process. The design performs well in terms of the type I and II error rates.

Download activity - last month

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Archive Staff Only

View Item