Comparison of Aggregated N-of-1 Trials with Parallel and Crossover Randomized Controlled Trials Using Simulation Studies
Article
Article Title | Comparison of Aggregated N-of-1 Trials with Parallel and Crossover Randomized Controlled Trials Using Simulation Studies |
---|---|
ERA Journal ID | 212679 |
Article Category | Article |
Authors | Blackston, J. Walker (Author), Chapple, Andrew G. (Author), McGree, James M. (Author), McDonald, Suzanne (Author) and Nikles, Jane (Author) |
Journal Title | Health Care: the journal of delivery science and innovation |
Journal Citation | 7 (4), pp. 1-13 |
Article Number | 137 |
Number of Pages | 13 |
Year | 2019 |
Publisher | Elsevier BV |
Place of Publication | Switzerland |
ISSN | 2213-0764 |
2213-0772 | |
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7040137 |
Web Address (URL) | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/7/4/137 |
Abstract | Background: N-of-1 trials offer an innovative approach to delivering personalized clinical care together with population-level research. While increasingly used, these methods have raised some statistical concerns in the healthcare community. Methods: We discuss concerns of selection bias, carryover effects from treatment, and trial data analysis conceptually, then rigorously evaluate concerns of effect sizes, power and sample size through simulation study. Four variance structures for patient heterogeneity and model error are considered in a series of 5000 simulated trials with 3 cycles, which compare aggregated N-of-1 trials to parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover trials. Results: Aggregated N-of-1 trials outperformed both traditional parallel RCT and crossover designs when these trial designs were simulated in terms of power and required sample size to obtain a given power. N-of-1 designs resulted in a higher type-I error probability than parallel RCT and cross over designs when moderate-to-strong carryover effects were not considered or in the presence of modeled selection bias. However, N-of-1 designs allowed better estimation of patient-level random effects. These results reinforce the need to account for these factors when planning N-of-1 trials. Conclusion: N-of-1 trial designs offer a rigorous method for advancing personalized medicine and healthcare with the potential to minimize costs and resources. Interventions can be tested with adequate power with far fewer patients than traditional RCT and crossover designs. Operating characteristics compare favorably to both traditional RCT and crossover designs. |
Keywords | N-of-1 trial; evidence-based medicine; comparative effectiveness; clinical trial; single-case study; simulation study; statistical methods |
ANZSRC Field of Research 2020 | 490501. Applied statistics |
Byline Affiliations | Tulane University, United States |
Louisiana State University, United States | |
Queensland University of Technology | |
University of Queensland | |
Institution of Origin | University of Southern Queensland |
https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q58y6/comparison-of-aggregated-n-of-1-trials-with-parallel-and-crossover-randomized-controlled-trials-using-simulation-studies
Download files
111
total views82
total downloads0
views this month0
downloads this month