The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Covariate adjustment for two‐sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: A principled yet flexible approach
Open accessAbstract
There is considerable debate regarding whether and how covariate‐adjusted analyses should be used in the comparison of treatments in randomized clinical trials. Substantial baseline covariate information is routinely collected in such trials, and one goal of adjustment is to exploit covariates associated with outcome to increase precision of estimation of the treatment effect. However, concerns are routinely raised over the potential for bias when the covariates used are selected post hoc and the potential for adjustment based on a model of the relationship between outcome, covariates, and treatment to invite a ‘fishing expedition’ for that leading to the most dramatic effect estimate. By appealing to the theory of semiparametrics, we are led naturally to a characterization of all treatment effect estimators and to principled, practically feasible methods for covariate adjustment that yield the desired gains in efficiency and that allow covariate relationships to be identified and exploited while circumventing the usual concerns. The methods and strategies for their implementation in practice are presented. Simulation studies and an application to data from an HIV clinical trial demonstrate the performance of the techniques relative to the existing methods. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Pocock, S. J., Assmann, S. E., Enos, L. E., & Kasten, L. E. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1296 · Cited by 1,077
Cited by
Dealing With Missing Outcome Data in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies
Groenwold, R. H. H., Donders, A. R. T., Roes, K. C. B., Harrell, F. E., & Moons, K. G. M. (2012) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwr302 · Cited by 398
How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abp9364 · Cited by 363
Review of recent methodological developments in group-randomized trials: part 2—analysis
Turner, E. L., Prague, M., Gallis, J. A., Li, F., & Murray, D. M. (2017) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2017.303707 · Cited by 195
Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.add8424 · Cited by 184
Cefalu, W. T., Leiter, L. A., de Bruin, T. W. A., Gause-Nilsson, I., Sugg, J., & Parikh, S. J. (2015) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc14-0315 · Cited by 182
Metadata
- Authors
- Tsiatis, A. A., Davidian, M., Zhang, M., & Lu, X.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08-28
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 4658-4677
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2064097590
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Covariate adjustment for two‐sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: A principled yet flexible approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.3113
- The paper
- Tsiatis, A. A., Davidian, M., Zhang, M., & Lu, X. (2008). Covariate adjustment for two‐sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: A principled yet flexible approach. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3113
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.