Actions
  • shareshare
  • link
  • cite
  • add
add
auto_awesome_motion View all 9 versions
Publication . Article . 2018

Comparison of nuisance parameters in pediatric versus adult randomized trials: a meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation

Ben Vandermeer; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide; Stephanie S. Weinreich; Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis; Dirk Bassler; Ricardo M. Fernandes; +5 Authors
Open Access
Published: 10 Jan 2018 Journal: BMC Medical Research Methodology, volume 18 (eissn: 1471-2288, Copyright policy )
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Country: Netherlands
Abstract

Background: We wished to compare the nuisance parameters of pediatric vs. adult randomized-trials (RCTs) and determine if the latter can be used in sample size computations of the former.Methods: In this meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation we examined meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic-Reviews, with at least one pediatric-RCT and at least one adult-RCT. Within each meta-analysis of binary efficacy-outcomes, we calculated the pooled-control-group event-rate (CER) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials, using random-effect models and subsequently calculated the control-group event-rate risk-ratio (CER-RR) of the pooled-pediatric-CERs vs. adult-CERs. Within each meta-analysis with continuous outcomes we calculated the pooled-control-group effect standard deviation (CE-SD) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials and subsequently calculated the CE-SD-ratio of the pooled-pediatric-CE-SDs vs. adult-CE-SDs. We then calculated across all meta-analyses the pooled-CER-RRs and pooled-CE-SD-ratios (primary endpoints) and the pooled-magnitude of effect-sizes of CER-RRs and CE-SD-ratios using REMs. A ratio < 1 indicates that pediatric trials have smaller nuisance parameters than adult trials.Results: We analyzed 208 meta-analyses (135 for binary-outcomes, 73 for continuous-outcomes). For binary outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 10% smaller CERs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.98). For mortality outcomes the summary-CE-RR was 0.48 (95% CIs: 0.31, 0.74). For continuous outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 26% smaller CE-SDs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-SD-ratio: 0.74).Conclusions: Clinically relevant differences in nuisance parameters between pediatric and adult trials were detected. These differences have implications for design of future studies. Extrapolation of nuisance parameters for sample-sizes calculations from adult-trials to pediatric-trials should be cautiously done.

Subjects by Vocabulary

Microsoft Academic Graph classification: Future studies Standard deviation law.invention Randomized controlled trial law Statistics Medicine business.industry Sample size determination business Nuisance

Library of Congress Subject Headings: lcsh:R5-920 lcsh:Medicine (General)

Subjects

Adult, Adult trials, Epidemiology, Extrapolation, Nuisance parameters, Health Informatics, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Humans, Sample size computations, Child, Pediatric trials, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Research Article

16 references, page 1 of 2

van der Tweel, I, Askie, L, Vandermeer, B, Ellenberg, S, Fernandes, RM, Saloojee, H. Standards for research in (Star) child health; standard 4: determining adequate sample size. Pediatrics. 2012; 129: S138-S145 [PubMed] [DOI]

Nikolakopoulos, S, Roes, K, van der Lee, JH, van der Tweel, I. Sample size calculations in pediatric clinical trials conducted in an ICU: a systematic review. Trials. 2014; 15: 274 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

van der Lee, JH, Tanck, MW, Wesseling, J, Offringa, M. Pitfalls in the design and analysis of paediatric clinical trials: a case of a “failed” multi-centre study, and potential solutions. Acta Paeditr. 2009; 98: 385-391 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

4.Koletsi D, Fleming PS, Seehra J, Bagos PG, Pandis N. Are Sample Sizes Clear and Justified in RCTs Published in Dental Journals? PLoS ONE. 2014. 10.1371/journal.pone.0085949.

Goodman, SN, Sladky, JTA. Bayesian approach to randomized controlled trials in children using information from adults: the case of Guillain-Barre syndrome. Clinical Trials. 2005; 2: 305-310 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Schoenfeld, DA, Zheng, H, Finkelstein, DM. Bayesian design using adult data to augment pediatric trials. Clinical Trials. 2009; 6: 297-304 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

7.Klassen TP, Hartling L, Craig JC, Offringa M. Children are not just small adults: the urgent need for high-quality trial evidence in children. PLoS Med. 2008. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050172.

Caldwell, PHY, Murphy, SB, Butow, PN, Craig, JC. Clincial trials in children. Lancet. 2004; 364: 803-811 [PubMed] [DOI]

Contopoulos-Ioannidis, DG, Baltogianni, MS, Ioannidis, JPA. Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children. J Pediatr. 2010; 157: 322-330 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Lathyris, D, Panagiotou, OA, Baltogianni, M, Ioannidis, JPA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. Safety of medical interventions in children versus adults. Pediatrics. 2014; 133: e666-e673 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Funded by
NWO| Blue Action
Project
  • Funder: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) (NWO)
  • Project Code: 16872
,
EC| GRIP
Project
GRIP
Global Research in Paediatrics
  • Funder: European Commission (EC)
  • Project Code: 261060
  • Funding stream: FP7 | SP1 | HEALTH
Related to Research communities
Download fromView all 9 sources
lock_open
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Article
License: cc-by
Providers: UnpayWall
moresidebar