SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Trials
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lipscomb, B.
Right arrow Articles by Berry, D. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lipscomb, B.
Right arrow Articles by Berry, D. A
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Bayesian predictions of final outcomes: regulatory approval of a spinal implant

Bailey Lipscomb

Guorong Ma

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Donald A Berry

Frank T McGraw Memorial Chair for Cancer Research, Professor and Chair, Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 447, Houston TX 77030-4009, USA; dberry{at}mdanderson.org

We describe a randomized controlled trial of an investigational spinal implant. The investigational device has an obvious benefit in comparison with control in that it precludes the need for harvesting bone graft and the pain and morbidity associated with it. Therefore, the principal comparison is one of noninferiority. The primary endpoint is overall success at two years. The "noninferiority margin" is 10%. Waiting for two years after the last patient's surgery may not be necessary depending on earlier measurements of success. We model the relationship between one-and two-year results. Our Bayesian analysis considers all available information, including some patients who have both one-and two-year results and some patients who have only one-year results. Our study provides an example in which Bayesian predictive modeling provided earlier information than otherwise and therefore it shortened the time line of the development of a therapeutic strategy.

Clinical Trials, Vol. 2, No. 4, 325-333 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/1740774505cn104oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
S. Biswas, D. D Liu, J J. Lee, and D. A Berry
Bayesian clinical trials at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center
Clinical Trials, June 1, 2009; 6(3): 205 - 216.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Advertisement