Covariate adjustment in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirements
Abstract
Objective Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with dichotomous outcomes may be analyzed with or without adjustment for baseline characteristics (covariates). We studied type I error, power, and potential reduction in sample size with several covariate adjustment strategies.Study design and setting Logistic regression analysis was applied to simulated data sets (n=360) with different treatment effects, covariate effects, outcome incidences, and covariate prevalences. Treatment effects were estimated with or without adjustment for a single dichotomous covariate. Strategies included always adjusting for the covariate ("prespecified"), or only when the covariate was predictive or imbalanced.Results We found that the type I error was generally at the nominal level. The power was highest with prespecified adjustment. The potential reduction in sample size was higher with stronger covariate effects (from 3 to 46%, at 50% outcome incidence and covariate prevalence) and independent of the treatment effect. At lower outcome incidences and/or covariate prevalences, the reduction was lower.Conclusion We conclude that adjustment for a predictive baseline characteristic may lead to a potentially important increase in power of analyses of treatment effect. Adjusted analysis should, hence, be considered more often for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Under an unconfounded experimental design with batches containing both controls and cases, batch effects can be removed by adding a batch covariate to the regression model, and this increases power compared to non-batch corrected analyses.
“However, under the assumptions of an unconfounded experimental design with batches containing both controls and cases, batch effects can be removed by adding a batch covariate to the regression model71. This increases the power compared to non-batch corrected analyses72–74.”
From scPower accelerates and optimizes the design of multi-sample single cell transcriptomic studies (2021) · cites this paper as [72]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 258
- Authors
- Hernández, A. V., Steyerberg, E. W., & Habbema, J. D. F.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-05
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 454-460
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2062383335
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 3.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- covariate adjustment, baseline characteristics, binary outcomes, statistical power, sample size reduction, type I error, logistic regression, treatment effect estimation
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Logistic Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Sample Size
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