Suppr超能文献

量化随机临床试验中因选择偏倚导致的基线协变量失衡程度。

Quantifying the magnitude of baseline covariate imbalances resulting from selection bias in randomized clinical trials.

作者信息

Berger Vance W

机构信息

Biometry Research Group, National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza North, Suite 3131, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7354, Bethesda, MD 20892-7354, USA.

出版信息

Biom J. 2005 Apr;47(2):119-27; discussion 128-39. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200410106.

Abstract

Selection bias is most common in observational studies, when patients select their own treatments or treatments are assigned based on patient characteristics, such as disease severity. This first-order selection bias, as we call it, is eliminated by randomization, but there is residual selection bias that may occur even in randomized trials which occurs when, subconsciously or otherwise, an investigator uses advance knowledge of upcoming treatment allocations as the basis for deciding whom to enroll. For example, patients more likely to respond may be preferentially enrolled when the active treatment is due to be allocated, and patients less likely to respond may be enrolled when the control group is due to be allocated. If the upcoming allocations can be observed in their entirety, then we will call the resulting selection bias second-order selection bias. Allocation concealment minimizes the ability to observe upcoming allocations, yet upcoming allocations may still be predicted (imperfectly), or even determined with certainty, if at least some of the previous allocations are known, and if restrictions (such as randomized blocks) were placed on the randomization. This mechanism, based on prediction but not observation of upcoming allocations, is the third-order selection bias that is controlled by perfectly successful masking, but without perfect masking is not controlled even by the combination of advance randomization and allocation concealment. Our purpose is to quantify the magnitude of baseline imbalance that can result from third-order selection bias when the randomized block procedure is used. The smaller the block sizes, the more accurately one can predict future treatment assignments in the same block as known previous assignments, so this magnitude will depend on the block size, as well as on the level of certainty about upcoming allocations required to bias the patient selection. We find that a binary covariate can, on average, be up to 50% unbalanced by third-order selection bias.

摘要

选择偏倚在观察性研究中最为常见,此时患者自行选择治疗方法,或者根据患者特征(如疾病严重程度)分配治疗。我们所说的这种一阶选择偏倚可通过随机化消除,但即使在随机试验中也可能存在残余选择偏倚,这种情况发生在研究者下意识地或以其他方式利用对即将进行的治疗分配的预先了解作为决定纳入哪些患者的依据时。例如,在即将分配活性治疗时,更可能产生反应的患者可能会被优先纳入,而在即将分配对照组时,不太可能产生反应的患者可能会被纳入。如果能够完整观察到即将进行的分配,那么我们将由此产生的选择偏倚称为二阶选择偏倚。分配隐藏可最大限度地降低观察即将进行的分配的能力,但如果至少知道一些先前的分配情况,并且如果在随机化过程中设置了限制(如随机区组),那么即将进行的分配仍可能被(不完美地)预测,甚至被确切确定。这种基于对即将进行的分配的预测而非观察的机制就是三阶选择偏倚,它可通过完美成功的遮蔽来控制,但如果没有完美遮蔽,即使结合预先随机化和分配隐藏也无法控制。我们的目的是量化在使用随机区组程序时三阶选择偏倚可能导致的基线不平衡程度。区组大小越小,就越能根据已知的先前分配情况更准确地预测同一区组中未来的治疗分配,因此这种程度将取决于区组大小,以及在使患者选择产生偏倚所需的对即将进行的分配的确定程度。我们发现,一个二元协变量平均可能因三阶选择偏倚而出现高达50%的不平衡。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验