Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Implementing type I & type II error spending for two-sided group sequential designs.

Kyle D Rudser1, Scott S Emerson

  • 1Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Box 357232, 1705 NE Pacific, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. rudserk@u.washington.edu

Contemporary Clinical Trials
|October 16, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Rejoinder to Commentaries on "A Perspective on the Appropriate Implementation of ICH E9(R1) Addendum Strategies for Handling Intercurrent Events".

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same author

STRIVING FOR DIVERSITY IN POPULATION-BASED RESEARCH: STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES IN THE RISE FOR HEALTH STUDY.

American journal of preventive medicine·2026
Same author

Meal Replacement Therapy for Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in Adolescents with Severe Obesity.

Childhood obesity (Print)·2026
Same author

Semaglutide, weight loss, and cardiovascular outcomes in the SELECT trial - Authors' reply.

Lancet (London, England)·2026
Same author

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Baseline Aspirin Use: Analyses of the SOUL and SELECT Trials.

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism·2026
Same author

Oral Semaglutide and Change in Cardiovascular Risk Factors in High-Risk Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Secondary Analysis of the SOUL Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA cardiology·2026
Same journal

Are older adult research participants representative of the general population? Results from 19 clinical studies at one academic research center.

Contemporary clinical trials·2026
Same journal

Multi-site feasibility of a web-based and telephone navigation intervention to connect lung cancer caregivers in community oncology settings with resources: Protocol for the WF-2301CD caregiver oncology needs evaluation tool (CONNECT) trial.

Contemporary clinical trials·2026
Same journal

Rationale and design of a CArdiac rehabilitation program on the prevention of CardioTOXicity in breast Cancer patients undergoing treatment with anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab (CARPTOX-BC) trial: A randomized, active control group, open-label trial.

Contemporary clinical trials·2026
Same journal

Evaluating clinical outcomes of using Undermyfork mobile app with Dexcom G7: Protocol for CGM-Undermyfork randomized controlled trial.

Contemporary clinical trials·2026
Same journal

Outcomes of dyadic recruitment in the promoting re-engagement in meaningful activity (PRIMA) trial.

Contemporary clinical trials·2026
Same journal

Overview of the linking exercise for advancing daily stress (LEADS) management and resilience randomized controlled trial in African American families.

Contemporary clinical trials·2026
See all related articles

Group sequential designs are crucial for clinical trial monitoring. This study compares two error spending methods, finding that one cannot replicate the boundaries of established sequential trial designs.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Trial Design

Background:

  • Group sequential designs are standard for clinical trial monitoring, addressing efficacy and ethical concerns.
  • Stopping rules are defined using type I and type II error spending functions.
  • Various methods exist for constructing two-sided sequential designs based on error spending.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the operating characteristics of two distinct methods for constructing two-sided group sequential trial designs.
  • To evaluate the flexible implementation of the unified family (Kittelson and Emerson) against the Chang, Hwang, and Shih method.
  • To assess the ability of these methods to mimic established boundary types.

Main Methods:

  • Comparison of two methods: Kittelson and Emerson's unified family implementation and Chang, Hwang, and Shih's method.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis focused on the timing of type II error spending.
  • Evaluation of the capacity of each method to replicate boundaries from Emerson and Fleming, Pampallona and Tsiatis, and Whitehead and Stratton designs.

    • Main Results:

    • Trial designs generated by the Chang, Hwang, and Shih method cannot replicate the boundaries of the unified family.
    • The unified family encompasses various established designs, including symmetric, Pampallona and Tsiatis, and double triangular designs.
    • Operating characteristics were compared across diverse sample size, power, and error spending function combinations.

    Conclusions:

    • The Kittelson and Emerson method offers greater flexibility in mimicking established group sequential design boundaries.
    • The Chang, Hwang, and Shih method has limitations in its ability to generate designs comparable to existing boundary types.
    • Understanding these differences is crucial for selecting appropriate group sequential designs in clinical trials.