Incorporating data received after a sequential trial has stopped into the final analysis : implementation and comparison of methods

Sooriyarachchi, M.R.; Whitehead, J.; Bolland, K.M.; Whitehead, A.; Matushita, T.

dc.contributor.author	Sooriyarachchi, M.R.
dc.contributor.author	Whitehead, J.
dc.contributor.author	Bolland, K.M.
dc.contributor.author	Whitehead, A.
dc.contributor.author	Matushita, T.
dc.date.accessioned	2021-07-07T03:29:14Z
dc.date.available	2021-07-07T03:29:14Z
dc.date.issued	2003
dc.identifier.citation	.Sooriyarachchi, M.R., Whitehead, J. Bolland, K., Whitehead, A., Matsushita, T. Incorporating data received after a sequential trial has stopped into the final analysis : implementation and comparison of methods, Biometrics 59, 701-709, 2003	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://archive.cmb.ac.lk:8080/xmlui/handle/70130/5488
dc.description.abstract	In a sequential clinical trial, accrual of data on patients often continues after the stopping criterion for the study has been met. This is termed “overrunning.”Ov errunning occurs mainly when the primary response from each patient is measured after some extended observation period. The objective of this article is to compare two methods of allowing for overrunning. In particular, simulation studies are reported that assess the two procedures in terms of how well they maintain the intended type I error rate. The effect on power resulting from the incorporation of “overrunning data”using the two procedures is evaluated	en_US
dc.description.sponsorship	Welcome Trust	en_US
dc.language.iso	en	en_US
dc.publisher	Wiley Blackwell	en_US
dc.subject	Clinical trials; Delayed data; Interim analysis; Overrunning; P-value function; Sequential methods	en_US
dc.title	Incorporating data received after a sequential trial has stopped into the final analysis : implementation and comparison of methods	en_US
dc.type	Article	en_US