Improving precision by adjusting for prognostic baseline variables in randomized trials with binary outcomes, without regression model assumptions
- 1 March 2017
- journal article
- Published by Elsevier in Contemporary Clinical Trials
- Vol. 54, 18-24
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
Funding Information
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (ME-1306-03198)
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (HHSF223201400113C)
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journalsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: Targeted maximum likelihood estimationStatistics in Medicine, 2008
- Randomization Does Not Justify Logistic RegressionStatistical Science, 2008
- Adjustment for Strong Predictors of Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury Trials: 25% Reduction in Sample Size Requirements in the IMPACT StudyJournal of Neurotrauma, 2006
- Subgroup Analysis and Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Clinical Trials of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic ReviewNeurosurgery, 2005
- Covariate adjustment in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirementsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004
- Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problemsStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction: Should we adjust for baseline characteristics?American Heart Journal, 2000
- Adjusting for Nonignorable Drop-Out Using Semiparametric Nonresponse ModelsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1999
- Sample size in clinical trials with dichotomous endpoints: use of covariablesJournal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 1998