English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  To speed up the evaluation of new therapies, the multi-arm, multi-stage trial design was suggested previously by the authors.    Methods  In this paper, we evaluate the performance of the two-stage, multi-arm design using four cancer trials conducted at the MRC CTU. The performance of the design at fictitious interim analyses is assessed using a conditional bootstrap approach.    Results  Two main aims are addressed: the error rate of correctly carrying on/stopping the trial at an interim analysis as well as quantifying the gains in terms of resources by employing this design. Furthermore, we make suggestions for the best timing of this interim analysis.    Conclusion  Multi-arm, multi-stage trials are an effective way of speeding up the therapy evaluation process. The design performs well in terms of the type I and II error rates.

How do multi-stage, multi-arm trials compare to the traditional two-arm parallel group design – a reanalysis of 4 trials