Cited by 593Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceOptimal Experimental Design Methods

Repeated measures in clinical trials: Analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design

Frison, Lars, Pocock, Stuart J.·1992·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

This paper explores the use of simple summary statistics for analysing repeated measurements in randomized clinical trials with two treatments. Quite often the data for each patient may be effectively summarized by a pre‐treatment mean and a post‐treatment mean. Analysis of covariance is the method of choice and its superiority over analysis of post‐treatment means or analysis of mean changes is quantified, as regards both reduced variance and avoidance of bias, using a simple model for the covariance structure between time points. Quantitative consideration is also given to practical issues in the design of repeated measures studies: the merits of having more than one pre‐treatment measurement are demonstrated, and methods for determining sample sizes in repeated measures designs are provided. Several examples from clinical trials are presented, and broad practical recommendations are made. The examples support the value of the compound symmetry assumption as a realistic simplification in quantitative planning of repeated measures trials. The analysis using summary statistics makes no such assumption. However, allowance in design for alternative non‐equal correlation structures can and should be made when necessary.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.4780111304

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Hypothesis testing used ANCOVA adjusted for baseline differences for primary and secondary outcomes.

    “Hypothesis testing was conducted via SPSS version 23 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) strategy 29 for primary (i.e., pain intensity and pain unpleasantness) and secondary outcomes (anxiety, relaxation, pleasant body sensations, desire for opioids), adjusted for baseline differences.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frison, L., & Pocock, S. J.
Affiliations
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1992-01
Volume
11
Issue
13
Pages
1685-1704
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W4235700900
Cited by
593
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
FWCI
8.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
Keywords
repeated measures, randomized controlled trials, covariance analysis, compound symmetry, covariance structure, sample size determination, trial design, correlation structure
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Models, Statistical, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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