Armitage P
Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, U.K.
Stat Med. 1991 Jun;10(6):925-35; discussion 936-7. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780100613.
The early development of experimental design discouraged a sequential approach to the analysis of data, yet this seems a natural form of scientific enquiry. Clinical trial investigators should continuously monitor the quality of their techniques, but will often wish to delegate data monitoring to an independent group. The history and functions of data monitoring committees (DMCs) are reviewed. DMCs come in many shapes and sizes. They will need to consider many aspects of the data before making recommendations to the investigators, who have ultimate responsibility for early termination or protocol changes. Statistical issues form part of the assessment, and will involve management, safety and efficacy. Two broad approaches to early stopping are (i) the demonstration of strong evidence that a treatment effect falls above or below some critical value (not necessarily zero); (ii) stochastic curtailment based on prediction of final results. The latter is examined somewhat critically. Most trials will involve group sequential analyses at discrete time points. The effect of repeated data inspection on (i) is well known, although its relevance is debatable. Bayesian and likelihood methods do not entirely remove the difficulty.
实验设计的早期发展不鼓励采用顺序性方法进行数据分析,但这似乎是一种自然的科学探究形式。临床试验研究者应持续监测其技术质量,但通常希望将数据监测工作委托给一个独立小组。本文回顾了数据监测委员会(DMC)的历史和职能。DMC有多种形式和规模。在向研究者提出建议之前,它们需要考虑数据的许多方面,而研究者对早期终止试验或修改方案负有最终责任。统计问题是评估的一部分,将涉及管理、安全性和有效性。早期终止试验有两种主要方法:(i)证明有强有力的证据表明治疗效果高于或低于某个临界值(不一定为零);(ii)基于对最终结果的预测进行随机截尾。本文对后者进行了一定程度的批判性审视。大多数试验将在离散时间点进行成组序贯分析。重复数据检查对(i)的影响是众所周知的,尽管其相关性存在争议。贝叶斯方法和似然方法并不能完全消除这一困难。