arXiv subjects

Martin Law

Publications and source records attributed to Martin Law.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Introducing precision-weighted bias as a performance measure to inform the inclusion of adaptive designs in meta-analysis

We propose a novel, intuitive measure of statistical performance: precision-weighted bias. Precision-weighted bias is defined as the unconditional bias of an estimator weighted by the degree of information (precision) it contains. Current guidelines, such as GRADE and CONSORT, often view the potential for increased bias in adaptive designs as a deterrent for the inclusion of such designs in systematic reviews. However, we demonstrate that the bias in a common-effect meta-analysis is approximately equal to the precision-weighted average of the precision-weighted biases of its constituent studies, rather than of their unweighted unconditional biases. Through simulation studies, we show that while adaptive designs may exhibit unweighted bias, they frequently have zero precision-weighted bias. Consequently, including these designs often results in a negligible change to the overall meta-analysis bias. These results suggest that precision-weighted bias is a superior indicator for determining whether to include an adaptive design in a meta-analysis. We recommend that precision-weighted bias be used as a standard complement to unweighted unconditional and conditional bias in simulation studies to support more inclusive and accurate evidence synthesis.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

Optimal Patient Allocation in Multi-Arm Clinical Trials

A multi-arm multi-stage trial is a multi-arm trial which includes interim analyses - analysing the data at certain specified points, generally discontinuing treatments which are concluded to not work and proceeding with the remainder. It is possible that the advantages of multi-arm trials over single-arm trials may be enhanced further by considering the allocation ratio, R. For an R:1 allocation ratio, Rn patients are allocated to the control arm and n patients allocated to each active treatment arm. In this study, the optimal allocation ratio will be defined as the allocation ratio which results in the smallest total sample size satisfying some required power and probability of type I error. This is an intuitive definition in the context of clinical trials, as a smaller trial will in general be more ethical and less expensive than a larger one satisfying the same error rates. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the optimal allocation ratio in the case of multiple active treatment arms. The setup for a single stage trial with K active treatment arms is described in Section 2, along with a brief exposition of Dunnett's statement regarding the optimal allocation ratio in such circumstances. Equations for type I error and power are derived, and the methodology used to investigate how total sample size may be minimised using allocation ratio is described. A two-stage trial is then considered, using the same methodology. Figures and tables showing how total sample size changes with allocation ratio, for a range of type I error and power values, are given in Section 3. The possible ethical and financial benefits of changing allocation ratio, including a simple example, is also included in Section 3. The results, and what they could mean in practical terms, are discussed in Section 4.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2020

Multi-outcome trials with a generalised number of efficacious outcomes

Existing multi-outcome designs focus almost entirely on evaluating whether all outcomes show evidence of efficacy or whether at least one outcome shows evidence of efficacy. While a small number of authors have provided multi-outcome designs that evaluate when a general number of outcomes show promise, these designs have been single-stage in nature only. We therefore propose two designs, of group-sequential and drop the loser form, that provide this design characteristic in a multi-stage setting. Previous such multi-outcome multi-stage designs have allowed only for a maximum of two outcomes; our designs thus also extend previous related proposals by permitting any number of outcomes.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

Optimal curtailed designs for single arm phase II clinical trials

In single-arm phase II oncology trials, the most popular choice of design is Simon's two-stage design, which allows early stopping at one interim analysis. However, the expected trial sample size can be reduced further by allowing curtailment. Curtailment is stopping when the final go or no-go decision is certain, so-called non-stochastic curtailment, or very likely, known as stochastic curtailment. In the context of single-arm phase II oncology trials, stochastic curtailment has previously been restricted to stopping in the second stage and/or stopping for a no-go decision only. We introduce two designs that incorporate stochastic curtailment and allow stopping after every observation, for either a go or no-go decision. We obtain optimal stopping boundaries by searching over a range of potential conditional powers, beyond which the trial will stop for a go or no-go decision. This search is novel: firstly, the search is undertaken over a range of values unique to each possible design realisation. Secondly, these values are evaluated taking into account the possibility of early stopping. Finally, each design realisation's operating characteristics are obtained exactly. The proposed designs are compared to existing designs in a real data example. They are also compared under three scenarios, both with respect to four single optimality criteria and using a loss function. The proposed designs are superior in almost all cases. Optimising for the expected sample size under either the null or alternative hypothesis, the saving compared to the popular Simon's design ranges from 22% to 55%.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2017

A matrix-based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta-analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects

Random-effects meta-analyses are very commonly used in medical statistics. Recent methodological developments include multivariate (multiple outcomes) and network (multiple treatments) meta-analysis. Here we provide a new model and corresponding estimation procedure for multivariate network meta-analysis, so that multiple outcomes and treatments can be included in a single analysis. Our new multivariate model is a direct extension of a univariate model for network meta-analysis that has recently been proposed. We allow two types of unknown variance parameters in our model, which represent between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency. Inconsistency arises when different forms of direct and indirect evidence are not in agreement, even having taken between-study heterogeneity into account. However the consistency assumption is often assumed in practice and so we also explain how to fit a reduced model which makes this assumption. Our estimation method extends several other commonly used methods for meta-analysis, including the method proposed by DerSimonian and Laird (1986). We investigate the use of our proposed methods in the context of a real example.

stat.ME↗