Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Baseline characteristics and statistical power in randomized controlled trials: selection, prognostic targeting, or
Bob Roozenbeek1, Andrew I R Maas, Hester F Lingsma
1Department of Public Health, Center for Medical Decision Making, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Objective:
Heterogeneity of patients is a common problem in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in various fields of clinical research. We aimed to investigate the potential benefits of different approaches for dealing with heterogeneity in a case study on traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Design And Setting:
Statistical modeling studies in three surveys and six randomized controlled trials.
Patients:
Individual patient data (n = 8033) from the IMPACT database.
Interventions:
We investigated the statistical power and efficiency of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to (1) selection according to baseline characteristics, (2) prognostic targeting (i.e., excluding those with a relatively extreme prognosis), and (3) covariate-adjusted analysis. Statistical power was expressed as the required sample size for obtaining 80% power and efficiency as the relative change in study duration, reflecting both gains in power and adverse effects on recruitment. Uniform and targeted treatment effects were simulated for 6 month unfavorable outcome.
Results:
For a uniform treatment effect, selection resulted ina sample size reduction of 33% in the surveys and 5% in the RCTs, but decreased recruitment by 65% and 41%, respectively. Hence, the relative study duration was prolonged (surveys: 95%; RCTs: 60%). Prognostic targeting resulted in sample size reductions of 28% and 17%, and increased relative study duration by 5% in surveys and 11% in the RCTs. Covariate adjustment reduced sample sizes by 30% and 16%, respectively, and did not affect recruitment. For a targeted treatment effect, the sample size reductions by selection (surveys: 47%; RCTs: 20%) and prognostic targeting (surveys: 49%; RCTs: 41%) were larger and adverse effects on recruitment smaller.
Conclusions:
The benefits of selection and prognostic targeting in terms of statistical power are reversed by adverse effects on recruitment. Covariate adjusted analysis in a broadly selected group of patients is advisable if a uniform treatment effect is assumed, since there is no decrease in recruitment.
Related Concept Videos
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Blinding
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...