Statistical rules for safety monitoring in clinical trials
Open accessAbstract
Background/Aims: Protecting patient safety is an essential component of the conduct of clinical trials. Rigorous safety monitoring schemes are implemented for these studies to guard against excess toxicity risk from study therapies. They often include protocol-specified stopping rules dictating that an excessive number of safety events will trigger a halt of the study. Statistical methods are useful for constructing rules that protect patients from exposure to excessive toxicity while also maintaining the chance of a false safety signal at a low level. Several statistical techniques have been proposed for this purpose, but the current literature lacks a rigorous comparison to determine which method may be best suitable for a given trial design. The aims of this article are (1) to describe a general framework for repeated monitoring of safety events in clinical trials; (2) to survey common statistical techniques for creating safety stopping criteria; and (3) to provide investigators with a software tool for constructing and assessing these stopping rules. Methods: The properties and operating characteristics of stopping rules produced by Pocock and O’Brien-Fleming tests, Bayesian Beta-Binomial models, and sequential probability ratio tests (SPRTs) are studied and compared for common scenarios that may arise in phase II and III trials. We developed the R package “stoppingrule” for constructing and evaluating stopping rules from these methods. Its usage is demonstrated through a redesign of a stopping rule for BMT CTN 0601 (registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00745420), a phase II, single-arm clinical trial that evaluated outcomes in pediatric sickle cell disease patients treated by bone marrow transplant. Results: Methods with aggressive stopping criteria early in the trial, such as the Pocock test and Bayesian Beta-Binomial models with weak priors, have permissive stopping criteria at late stages. This results in a trade-off where rules with aggressive early monitoring generally will have a smaller number of expected toxicities but also lower power than rules with more conservative early stopping, such as the O-Brien-Fleming test and Beta-Binomial models with strong priors. The modified SPRT method is sensitive to the choice of alternative toxicity rate. The maximized SPRT generally has a higher number of expected toxicities and/or worse power than other methods. Conclusions: Because the goal is to minimize the number of patients exposed to and experiencing toxicities from an unsafe therapy, we recommend using the Pocock or Beta-Binomial, weak prior methods for constructing safety stopping rules. At the design stage, the operating characteristics of candidate rules should be evaluated under various possible toxicity rates in order to guide the choice of rule(s) for a given trial; our R package facilitates this evaluation.
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
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.
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?
Various statistical strategies have been developed to compensate for the inflated risk from multiple analyses of accumulating data.
“Multiple analyses of the accumulating data increase the risk of a false positive (type I error), and various statistical strategies have been developed to compensate for this inflated risk.459”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [459]
Multiple analyses of the accumulating data increase the risk of a false positive (type I error).
“Multiple analyses of the accumulating data increase the risk of a false positive (type I error), and various statistical strategies have been developed to compensate for this inflated risk.459”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [459]
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
A Multiple Testing Procedure for Clinical Trials
O'Brien, P. C., & Fleming, T. R. (1979) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530245 · Cited by 3,311 · see citing works
Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials
POCOCK, S. J. (1977) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/64.2.191 · Cited by 1,831 · see citing works
Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses
Wald, A. (1945) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731118 · Cited by 1,679 · see citing works
Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials
Jennison, C., & Turnbull, B. W. (1999) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780367805326 · Cited by 1,361 · see citing works
Approximately Optimal One-Parameter Boundaries for Group Sequential Trials
Wang, S. K., & Tsiatis, A. A. (1987) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531959 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Practical Bayesian Guidelines for Phase IIB Clinical Trials
Thall, P. F., & Simon, R. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533377 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
A Maximized Sequential Probability Ratio Test for Drug and Vaccine Safety Surveillance
Kulldorff, M., Davis, R. L., KOLCZAK, M. S., Lewis, E. M., Lieu, T. A., & Platt, R. G. (2011) · Sequential Analysis · doi:10.1080/07474946.2011.539924 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
A trial of unrelated donor marrow transplantation for children with severe sickle cell disease
Shenoy, S. S., Eapen, M., Panepinto, J. A., Logan, B. R., Wu, J., Abraham, A., Brochstein, J. A., Chaudhury, S., Godder, K. T., Haight, A. E., et al. (2016) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2016-05-715870 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Self-citationContinuous Toxicity Monitoring in Phase II Trials in Oncology
Ivanova, A., Qaqish, B. F., & Schell, M. J. (2005) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00311.x · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Issues in designing sequential stopping rules for monitoring side effects in clinical trials
Goldman, A. I. (1987) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(87)90153-x · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Statistical Monitoring of Safety in Clinical Trials
Zhu, L., Yao, B., Xia, H. A., & Jiang, Q. (2015) · Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research · doi:10.1080/19466315.2015.1117017 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
A Bayesian stopping rule for a single arm study: With a case study of stem cell transplantation
Chen, C., & Chaloner, K. M. (2005) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2429 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Monitoring rules for toxicity in Phase II oncology trials
Ivanova, A., Song, G., Marchenko, O., & Moschos, S. J. (2015) · Clinical Investigation · doi:10.4155/cli.15.2 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Design of Early Trials in Stem Cell Transplantation
Geller, N. L., Follmann, D. A., Carter, S., & Leifer, E. (2003) · Chapman & Hall/CRC biostatistics series · doi:10.1201/9780203912881.ch2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials
Hróbjartsson, A., Boutron, I., Hopewell, S., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Collins, G. S., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081660 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Drews, J., Zachäus, M., Kleemann, T., Schirra, J. R. J., Cahyadi, O., Möschler, O., Schulze, C., Steinbrück, I., Wedi, E., Pech, O., et al. (2025) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2024-334229 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Aftab, M., Ali, H. H. M., Ullah, M., Ikram, S., Khan, S. U., Wahab, A., & Naeem, M. (2025) · Biomedical Materials & Devices · doi:10.1007/s44174-025-00444-9 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Sequential monitoring of time-to-event safety endpoints in clinical trials
Martens, M. J., Lian, Q., Geller, N. L., Leifer, E., & Logan, B. R. (2024) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/17407745241304119 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationMinimizing Harm: Optimal Monitoring Boundaries When Harm is Present
Vallejo, J. J., & Wang, S. (2025) · Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research · doi:10.1080/19466315.2025.2602449 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Safeguarding Gaps in the PATHWAYS Trial: Insights from GnRH Analogue Use in Gynecology
Jorgensen, S. C. J. (2026) · Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2026.2641107 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
TITE-safety: a robust time-to-event safety monitoring approach for clinical trials
Martens, M. J., Lian, Q., & Logan, B. R. (2026) · Biometrics · doi:10.1093/biomtc/ujag097
Self-citationRepurposing of colchicine: critical examination of clinical trials and scoping review
Bindel, L. J., & Seifert, R. (2026) · European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00228-026-04149-w
Are safety lead-in phase II clinical trials really safe?
Potts, E. N., Ferron, M., Biard, L., & Lee, S. M. (2026) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/17407745261474080
Vaezzadeh, S., Oyesile, C., Barber, N., & Pakkal, B. K. (2026) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2026.08.013
- Authors
- Martens, M. J., & Logan, B. R.
- Affiliations
- Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Martens, Michael J
- Venue
- Clinical Trials
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-10-25
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 152-161
- ISSN
- 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
- 1740-7753
- PMC
- PMC11003847
- OpenAlex
- W4387930956
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U10HL069294, U24HL138660)
- National Cancer Institute
- National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Keywords
- trial safety monitoring, stopping rules, sequential probability ratio test, operating characteristics, sickle cell disease, bone marrow transplantation, pediatric clinical trials
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Child, Humans, Probability, Research Design, Models, Statistical, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
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