Cited by 595

An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies

Murphy, S. A.·2005·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

In adaptive treatment strategies, the treatment level and type is repeatedly adjusted according to ongoing individual response. Since past treatment may have delayed effects, the development of these treatment strategies is challenging. This paper advocates the use of sequential multiple assignment randomized trials in the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Both a simple ad hoc method for ascertaining sample sizes and simple analysis methods are provided. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.2022

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Glasgow MS, Engel BT, D'Lugo BC. A controlled study of a standardized behavioural stepped treatment for hypertension. Psychosomatic Medicine 1989; 51:10 -26.
  2. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ. Do tailored behavior change messages enhance the e ectiveness of health risk appraisal? Results from a randomized trial. Health Education Research 1996; 11(1):97-105.
  3. Breslin FC, Sobell MB, Sobell LC, Cunningham JA, Sdao-Jarvie K, Borsoi D. Problem drinkers: evaluation of a stepped-care approach. Journal of Substance Abuse 1999; 10(3):217-232.
  4. Un tzer J, Katon W, Williams JW, Callahan CM, Harpole L, Hunkeler EM, Ho ng M, Arean P, Hegel MT, Schoenbaum M, Oishi SM, Langston CA. Improving primary care for depression in late life: the design of a multicenter randomized trial. Medical Care 2001; 39(8):785-799.
  5. Brooner RK, Kidorf M. Using behavioral reinforcement to improve methadone treatment participation. Science and Practice Perspectives 2002; 1:38-48.
  6. Lavori PW, Dawson R, Roth AJ. Flexible treatment strategies in chronic disease: clinical and research implications. Biological Psychiatry 2000; 48:605-614.
  7. Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Statist. Med. 2005; 24:1455-1481
  8. Robins JM. Information recovery and bias adjustment in proportional hazards regression analysis of randomized trials using surrogate markers. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section; American Statistical Association 1993; 24-33.
  9. Robins JM. Causal inference from complex longitudinal data. Latent Variable Modeling and Applications to Causality, Berkane M (ed.). Lecture Notes in Statistics, vol. 120. Springer: New York, 1997; 69-117.
  10. Murphy SA, van der Laan MJ, Robins JM, CPPRG. Marginal mean models for dynamic regimes. Journal of American Statistical Association 2001; 96:1410 -1423.
  11. Lavori PW, Dawson R. Dynamic treatment regimes: practical design considerations. Clinical Trials 2003; 1: 9-20.
  12. Schneider LS, Tariot PN, Lyketsos CG, Dagerman KS, Davis KL, Davis S, Hsiao JK, Jeste DV, Katz IR, Olin JT, Pollock BG, Rabins PV, Rosenheck RA, Small GW, Lebowitz B, Lieberman JA. National Institute of Mental Health clinical antipsychotic trials of intervention e ectiveness (CATIE), Alzheimer disease trial methodology. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2001; 9(4):346-360.
  13. Rush AJ, Trivedi M, Fava M. Depression, IV. American Journal of Psychiatry 2003; 160(2):237.
  14. Lavori PW, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, Alpert J, Fava M, Kupfer DJ, Nierenberg A, Quitkin FM, Sacheim HA, Thase ME, Trivedi M. Biological Psychiatry 2001; 50:792-801.
  15. Thall PF, Millikan RE, Sung HG. Evaluating multiple treatment courses in clinical trials. Statistics and Medicine 2000; 19:1011-1028.
  16. Berry DA. Adaptive trials and Bayesian statistics in drug development. Biopharmaceutical Report, vol. 9, 2001; 1-7.
  17. Rosenberger WF, Stallard N, Ivanova A, Harper CN, Ricks ML. Optimal adaptive designs for binary response trials. Biometrics 2001; 57:909-913.
  18. Fisher LD. Self-designing clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:1551-1562.
  19. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Mid-course sample size modiÿcation in clinical trials based on the observed treatment e ect. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:971-993.
  20. Cowell RG, Dawid AP, Lauritzen SL, Spiegelhalter DJ. Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems. Springer: New York, 1999.
  21. Gail MH, Benichou J (eds). Encyclopedia of Epidemiologic Methods. Wiley: Chichester, New York, 2000.
  22. Parmigiani G. Modeling in Medical Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach. Wiley: England, 2002.
  23. Tengs TO, Winer EP, Paddock S, Aguilar-Chavez, Berry DA. Testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility genes: a decision analysis. Medical Decision Making 1998; 18:365-375.
  24. Lavori PW, Dawson R. A design for testing clinical strategies: biased individually tailored within-subject randomization. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 2000; 163:29 -38.
  25. Box GP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS. Statistics for Experimenters. Wiley: New York, 1978.
  26. Robins JM. Robust estimation in sequentially ignorable missing data models and causal inference models. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Section on Bayesian Statistical Science 1999; 6-10.
  27. Murphy SA. Optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society; Series B 2003; 65(2):331-366.
  28. Berry DA, Eick SG. Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: a decision analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1995; 14:231-246.
  29. Berry DA. General keynote: clinical trial design. Gynecologic Oncology 2003; 88:S114-S116.
  30. Thall PF, Sung HG, Estey EH. Selecting therapeutic strategies based on e cacy and death in multicourse clinical trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2002; 97:29-39.
  31. Rubin DB. Bayesian inference for causal e ects: the role of randomization. The Annals of Statistics 1978; 6:34-58.
  32. Rubin DB. Comment: which ifs have causal answers. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1986; 81:961-962.
  33. Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Statist. Med. 2005; 24:1455-1481
  34. Robins JM. Addendum to a new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods-application to control of the healthy worker survivor e ect. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 1987; 14:923-945.
  35. Ser ing RJ. Approximation theorems of Mathematical Statistics. Wiley: New York, 1980.
  36. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Guadagnoli E, Rossi JS, DiClemente CC. Patterns of change: dynamic typology applied to smoking cessation. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1991; 26(1):83-107.
  37. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Fava JL, Rossi JS, Tsoh JY. Evaluating a population-based recruitment approach and a stage-based expert system intervention for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors 2001; 26:583-602.
  38. Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Statist. Med. 2005; 24:1455-1481

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murphy, S. A.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-12-07
Volume
24
Issue
10
Pages
1455-1481
ISSN
  • 0277-6715
  • 1097-0258
Cited by
595
References
3
Language
en
Funders
NIDA (K02-DA 15672, P50 DA 10075)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review