Testing for Treatment Effect in Covariate-Adaptive Randomized Clinical Trials with Generalized Linear Models and Omitted Covariates
Abstract
Concerns have been expressed over the validity of statistical inference under covariate-adaptive randomization despite the extensive use in clinical trials. In the literature, the inferential properties under covariate-adaptive randomization have been mainly studied for continuous responses; in particular, it is well known that the usual two sample t-test for treatment effect is typically conservative, in the sense that the actual test size is smaller than the nominal level. This phenomenon of invalid tests has also been found for generalized linear models without adjusting for the covariates and are sometimes more worrisome due to inflated Type I error. The purpose of this study is to examine the unadjusted test for treatment effect under generalized linear models and covariate-adaptive randomization. For a large class of covariate-adaptive randomization methods, we obtain the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic under the null hypothesis and derive the conditions under which the test is conservative, valid, or anti-conservative. Several commonly used generalized linear models, such as logistic regression and Poisson regression, are discussed in detail. An adjustment method is also proposed to achieve a valid size based on the asymptotic results. Numerical studies confirm the theoretical findings and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed adjustment method.
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.