Cited by 78Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Use of covariates in randomized controlled trials

Open access
VAN BREUKELEN, GERARD J.P., VAN DIJK, KOENE R.A.·2007·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Abstract

A recent discussion in this journal illustrates some recurrent misunderstandings about the role of covariates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This letter aims at clarifying this role and at pointing out a pitfall in SPSS repeated measures ANOVA. We hope that our commentary will contribute to a further improvement in the use of advanced statistics in neuropsychology.

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 · 10.1017/s1355617707071147

Cites

0 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?

  • The use of covariates in a study design such as this is not a sound strategy.

    “detailed statistical arguments as to why the use of covariates in a study design such as ours is not a sound strategy.”

    From The effect of risk communication on periodontal treatment outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. (2019) · cites this paper as [20]

    The paper does not argue that using covariates in randomized controlled trials is unsound. In its discussion of baseline differences, it says covariates can increase the power of a treatment-effect test, although they are not needed to correct chance baseline differences. The citing sentence does not specify what differs about its own design, so the paper cannot establish a blanket judgment about that design. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Little, R.J.A. (1995). Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated- measures studies. Journal of the American Statistical Associa- tion, 90, 1112-1121.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
VAN BREUKELEN, G. J. P., & VAN DIJK, K. R. A.
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Published
2007-08-14
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
903-904
ISSN
  • 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7661
OpenAlex
W2155859251
Cited by
78
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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 › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
covariates, randomized controlled trials, repeated measures ANOVA, SPSS, neuropsychological research, statistical analysis
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, 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