MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3197238879 · doi:10.1093/ije/dyab168.182

488Trial design and statistical considerations for a trial comparing group and individual treatments

2021· article· en· W3197238879 on OpenAlexaff
Moleen Dzikiti, Mark F. Cotton, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Epidemiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Research designCredibilityMedicineFamily medicinePsychologyNursingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Focus of Presentation A randomized clinical trial is considered the best experimental study design for comparing the effect of an intervention against a control. Selecting a trial design depends on the trial objective, a better choice would be a design that provides optimal estimation of the intervention effect, i.e. a design that yields smaller variance for the estimated intervention effect and giving stable estimates. The choice of analysis method depends on trial design aspects, reasonable assumption on the underlying probabilistic model generating the data and the credibility of findings depend on the appropriateness of the analysis method used. Here, we describe a planned randomized standard of care-controlled trial on interactive weekly mobile text messaging added to a motivational interviewing intervention aimed at sustaining continued breastfeeding among women living with HIV in South Africa. Under the “findings” heading, we highlight some of the trial design and statistical issues for discussion at the early career workshop, to gain insights on possible approaches to address the methods issues. Methods and trial design: Women from peri-urban informal settlements and a rural setting will be invited to participate within 24 hours of giving birth at selected primary healthcare facilities. Eligible women will be individually randomized to intervention or control arm after providing written informed consent. The intervention will consist of a weekly text message encouraging women to exclusively breastfeed and inquiring if they have any problems breastfeeding their infants. In addition to text messaging, women assigned to the intervention arm must visit the research site where a research nurse or counsellor will conduct an individual motivational interview, at weeks 2, 6, and 10 post-delivery. Women assigned to the control arm will be counselled by the standard of care service, i.e. primary healthcare nurses and trained counsellors will counsel women to exclusively breastfeed for the first six months through group educational infant feeding counselling sessions. Study participation will not change standard of care of participants, so women assigned to the intervention arm will receive the standard of care service, in line with provincial guidelines applicable in the sector during the study period. The primary outcomes are 1) number of women who are exclusively breastfeeding at week 24 post-delivery and 2) number of women reporting any breastfeeding at week 24 post-delivery. Findings or trial design and statistical issues Although women are individually randomly assigned to intervention and control arms, the standard of care at the primary health care facility may induce a dependency between these participants, also called the group therapy effect. For example, promotion of exclusive breastfeeding in HIV-infected women may be enhanced through positive feedback from women who follow this practice or vice versa. The standard of care will be clustered within group infant feeding counselling session, where participants (both assigned to the control and intervention arm) will receive the standard of care in groups. Women assigned to the intervention arm will receive individual motivational interview and the text messages will be send separately, to each woman’s mobile phone. Implications The trial objective will be to determine whether at week 24 following delivery, weekly text message added to motivational interview leads to better adherence to exclusive breastfeeding and leads to extended breastfeeding than standard of care. Trial design and statistical issues to discuss during the workshop will include a discussion around: 1) the appropriateness of invoking the standard experimental design to address the study objectives, and possible alternatives 2) Sample size estimation for a trial comparing group and individual treatments? 3) Reasonable assumption on the underlying probabilistic model generating the outcome data and 4) Candidate statistical models. Key messages Use of sound statistical principles of experimental design established for clinical trials allow objective and unbiased comparisons.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.578
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.706
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5780.706
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0170.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.323
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Epidemiology→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→