Model-Robust Inference for Clinical Trials that Improve Precision by Stratified Randomization and Covariate Adjustment
Abstract
Two commonly used methods for improving precision and power in clinical trials are stratified randomization and covariate adjustment. However, many trials do not fully capitalize on the combined precision gains from these two methods, which can lead to wasted resources in terms of sample size and trial duration. We derive consistency and asymptotic normality of model-robust estimators that combine these two methods, and show that these estimators can lead to substantial gains in precision and power. Our theorems cover a class of estimators that handle continuous, binary, and time-to-event outcomes; missing outcomes under the missing at random assumption are handled as well. For each estimator, we give a formula for a consistent variance estimator that is model-robust and that fully captures variance reductions from stratified randomization and covariate adjustment. Also, we give the first proof (to the best of our knowledge) of consistency and asymptotic normality of the Kaplan-Meier estimator under stratified randomization, and we derive its asymptotic variance. The above results also hold for the biased-coin covariate-adaptive design. We demonstrate our results using three completed, phase 3, randomized trial data sets of treatments for substance use disorder, where the variance reduction due to stratified randomization and covariate adjustment ranges from 1% to 36%.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants
- Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
- Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.