Cited by 223Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Designing a pilot sequential multiple assignment randomized trial for developing an adaptive treatment strategy

Open access
Almirall, Daniel, Compton, Scott N., Gunlicks‐Stoessel, Meredith, Duan, Naihua, Murphy, Susan A.·2012·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

There is growing interest in how best to adapt and readapt treatments to individuals to maximize clinical benefit. In response, adaptive treatment strategies (ATS), which operationalize adaptive, sequential clinical decision making, have been developed. From a patient's perspective an ATS is a sequence of treatments, each individualized to the patient's evolving health status. From a clinician's perspective, an ATS is a sequence of decision rules that input the patient's current health status and output the next recommended treatment. Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMART) have been developed to address the sequencing questions that arise in the development of ATSs, but SMARTs are relatively new in clinical research. This article provides an introduction to ATSs and SMART designs. This article also discusses the design of SMART pilot studies to address feasibility concerns, and to prepare investigators for a full‐scale SMART. We consider an example SMART for the development of an ATS in the treatment of pediatric generalized anxiety disorders. Using the example SMART, we identify and discuss design issues unique to SMARTs that are best addressed in an external pilot study prior to the full‐scale SMART. We also address the question of how many participants are needed in a SMART pilot study. A properly executed pilot study can be used to effectively address concerns about acceptability and feasibility in preparation for (that is, prior to) executing a full‐scale SMART. Copyright © 2012 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.4512

Cites

43 of 43 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: 1

  1. [39]Zucker DM Wittes JT Schabenberger O Brittain E Internal pilot studies II: comparison of various procedures Statistics in Medicine 1999 18 3493 3509 10611621

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Almirall, D., Compton, S. N., Gunlicks‐Stoessel, M., Duan, N., & Murphy, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Almirall, Daniel
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-22
Volume
31
Issue
17
Pages
1887-1902
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2019384544
Cited by
223
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
12.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pennsylvania State University
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080015, K23-MH-075843-04, K23MH090216, K23MH075843)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA010075)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
adaptive treatment strategies, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, smart design, pilot study design, feasibility assessment, sample size determination, sequential decision rules, personalized treatment
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Child, Humans, Pilot Projects, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sertraline

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