The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Repeated measures in clinical trials: Analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design
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.
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
The Analysis of Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials
Pocock, S. J., Geller, N. L., & Tsiatis, A. A. (1987) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531989 · Cited by 524
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1002/sim.4780090511 · DOI
Cited by
Castelli, F. (2002) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awf189 · Cited by 1,377
Listening to Action-related Sentences Activates Fronto-parietal Motor Circuits
Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M. C., Gallese, V., Danna, M., Scifo, P., Fazio, F., Rizzolatti, G., Cappa, S. F., & Perani, D. (2005) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/0898929053124965 · Cited by 1,249
Dias, S., Sutton, A. J., Ades, A. E., & Welton, N. J. (2013) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x12458724 · Cited by 1,207
Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials
Assmann, S. F., Pocock, S. J., Enos, L. E., & Kasten, L. E. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02039-0 · Cited by 1,167
Self-citationPocock, S. J., Assmann, S. E., Enos, L. E., & Kasten, L. E. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1296 · Cited by 1,077
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Senn, S., Frison, L., & Pocock, S.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-01-30
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 197-198
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2129862407
- Cited by
- 529
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.