
Covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials has the potential benefit of precision gain. It also has the potential pitfall of reduced objectivity as it opens the possibility of selecting a ‘favorable’ model that yields strong treatment benefit estimate. Although there is a large volume of statistical literature targeting on the first aspect, realistic solutions to enforce objective inference and improve precision are rare. As a typical randomized trial needs to accommodate many implementation issues beyond statistical considerations, maintaining the objectivity is at least as important as precision gain if not more, particularly from the perspective of the regulatory agencies. In this article, we propose a two‐stage estimation procedure based on inverse probability weighting to achieve better precision without compromising objectivity. The procedure is designed in a way such that the covariate adjustment is performed before seeing the outcome, effectively reducing the possibility of selecting a ‘favorable’ model that yields a strong intervention effect. Both theoretical and numerical properties of the estimation procedure are presented. Application of the proposed method to a real data example is presented. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Male, Covariate adjustment, Models, Statistical, Liver Cirrhosis, Biliary, Penicillamine, Efficiency, Middle Aged, Clinical trials, Objectivity, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Computer Simulation, Female, Inverse probability weighting, Probability, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Male, Covariate adjustment, Models, Statistical, Liver Cirrhosis, Biliary, Penicillamine, Efficiency, Middle Aged, Clinical trials, Objectivity, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Computer Simulation, Female, Inverse probability weighting, Probability, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 37 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
