Cited by 498Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adjustment for prognostic covariates can lead to increased power in the analysis of randomized trials. However, adjusted analyses are not often performed in practice. METHODS: We used simulation to examine the impact of covariate adjustment on 12 outcomes from 8 studies across a range of therapeutic areas. We assessed (1) how large an increase in power can be expected in practice; and (2) the impact of adjustment for covariates that are not prognostic. RESULTS: Adjustment for known prognostic covariates led to large increases in power for most outcomes. When power was set to 80% based on an unadjusted analysis, covariate adjustment led to a median increase in power to 92.6% across the 12 outcomes (range 80.6 to 99.4%). Power was increased to over 85% for 8 of 12 outcomes, and to over 95% for 5 of 12 outcomes. Conversely, the largest decrease in power from adjustment for covariates that were not prognostic was from 80% to 78.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment for known prognostic covariates can lead to substantial increases in power, and should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of randomized trials. The potential benefits of adjusting for a small number of possibly prognostic covariates in trials with moderate or large sample sizes far outweigh the risks of doing so, and so should also be considered.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1745-6215-15-139

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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 models were adjusted for baseline depression to reduce baseline differences in the outcome variables.

    “In addition to adjusting for baseline to end-of-treatment (EOT) by group interactions, we adjusted for baseline depression, a well-established prognostic covariate of chronic pain [28], to reduce baseline differences in the outcome variables [29].”
  • Adjusting for baseline covariates, including those used in stratified randomisation, can lead to improved power to detect an intervention effect, particularly when a baseline covariate is prognostic of the outcome.

    “Adjusting for baseline covariates, including those used in any stratified randomisation, is often advised in the analysis, particularly when a baseline covariate is prognostic of the outcome, as it can lead to improved power to detect an intervention effect.408 409 410”
  • 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.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kahan, B. C., Jairath, V., Doré, C. J., & Morris, T. P.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
Corresponding author
Kahan, Brennan C
Venue
Trials
Published
2014-04-23
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
139-139
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166091513
Cited by
497
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6
FWCI
18.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2013-13-008)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_EX_G0800814)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
covariate adjustment, prognostic factors, statistical power, simulation study, trial analysis
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Linear Models, Logistic Models, Proportional Hazards Models, 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