PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8341864

Tests for qualitative treatment-by-centre interaction using a 'pushback' procedure.

Abstract

In multicentre clinical trials using a common protocol, the centres are usually regarded as being a fixed factor, thus allowing any treatment-by-centre interaction to be omitted from the error term for the effect of treatment. However, we feel it necessary to use the treatment-by-centre interaction as the error term if there is substantial evidence that the interaction with centres is qualitative instead of quantitative. To make allowance for the estimated uncertainties of the centre means, we propose choosing a reference value (for example, the median of the ordered array of centre means) and converting the individual centre results into standardized deviations from the reference value. The deviations are then reordered, and the results 'pushed back' by amounts appropriate for the corresponding order statistics in a sample from the relevant distribution. The pushed-back standardized deviations are then restored to the original scale. The appearance of opposite signs among the destandardized values for the various centres is then taken as 'substantial evidence' of qualitative interaction. Procedures are presented using, in any combination: (i) Gaussian, or Student's t-distribution; (ii) order-statistic medians or outward 90 per cent points of the corresponding order statistic distributions; (iii) pooling or grouping and pooling the internally estimated standard deviations of the centre means. The use of the least conservative combination--Student's t, outward 90 per cent points, grouping and pooling--is recommended.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J L Ciminera, J F Heyse, H H Nguyen, J W Tukey. 1993-06-15. Tests for qualitative treatment-by-centre interaction using a 'pushback' procedure.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780121104

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Factorial design considerations.

PURPOSE: Factorial designs may be proposed to test extra questions within a clinical trial. A common approach to sample size and analysis for factorial trials assumes no statistical interactions and does not adjust for multiple testing. This investigation considered the trade-off between potential gains from testing more questions with fewer patients versus how often a factorial trial might arrive at an incorrect conclusion. METHODS: A simulation study of a 2 x 2 design (observation v chemotherapy v radiation therapy v the combination) was performed under various conditions, including effect of one, both, or neither treatment and absence or presence of statistical interaction (effect of one treatment differed according to the presence of the other). Three analysis approaches were investigated, one assuming no interaction, a second testing first for interaction, and the third testing for interaction as well as adjusting for multiple testing. The approaches were compared with respect to the probability of selecting the correct treatment arm. RESULTS: No one approach was superior. Testing for interaction was beneficial in some settings but detrimental in others. Under some scenarios, the factorial design improved efficiency, but under others, all three approaches resulted in poor probability of selecting the correct treatment arm at the end of the trial. CONCLUSION: Extra efficiency is possible, but it is difficult to predict when favorable conditions exist. If a factorial design is used, potential efficiency gains should be weighed against potential loss of power to arrive at the correct conclusion under possible scenarios of interest.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗