Sequential analysis applied to clinical trials in dentistry: A systematic review

Faculty of Science, Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2N8, Canada.
Evidence-based dentistry 02/2008; 9(2):55-60. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400587
Source: PubMed


Clinical trials employ sequential analysis for the ethical and economic benefits it brings. In dentistry, as in other fields, resources are scarce and efforts are made to ensure that patients are treated ethically. The objective of this systematic review was to characterise the use of sequential analysis for clinical trials in dentistry. We searched various databases from 1900 through to January 2008. Articles were selected for review if they were clinical trials in the field of dentistry that had applied some form of sequential analysis. Selection was carried out independently by two of the authors. We included 18 trials from various specialties, which involved many different interventions. We conclude that sequential analysis seems to be underused in this field but that there are sufficient methodological resources in place for future applications.Evidence-Based Dentistry (2008) 9, 55-62. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400587.

Download full-text


Available from: Paul Major, Aug 19, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The authors investigated the performance of a decision-support classifier for the diagnosis of traumatic injury with blood loss, implemented with three different data-processing methods. For each method, they computed standard diagnostic test characteristics and novel metrics related to decision consistency and latency. Setting. Prehospital air ambulance transport. Patients. A total of 557 trauma patients. DESIGN: . Continually monitored vital-sign data from 279 patients (50%) were randomly selected for classifier development, and the remaining were used for testing. Three data-processing methods were evaluated over 16 min of patient monitoring: a 2-min moving window, time averaging, and postprocessing with the sequential probability ratio test (SPRT). Measurements. Sensitivity and specificity were computed. Consistency was quantified through cumulative counts of decision changes over time and the fraction of patients affected by false alarms. Latency was evaluated by the fraction of patients without a decision. RESULTS: . All 3 methods showed very similar final sensitivities and specificities. Yet, there were significant differences in terms of the fraction of patients affected by false alarms, decision changes through time, and latency. For instance, use of the SPRT led to a 75% reduction in the number of decision changes and a 36% reduction in the number of patients affected by false alarms, at the expense of 3% unresolved final decisions. CONCLUSION: . The proposed metrics of decision consistency and decision latency provided additional information beyond what could be obtained from test sensitivity and specificity and are likely to be clinically relevant in some applications involving temporal decision making.
    Medical Decision Making 06/2012; 33(2). DOI:10.1177/0272989X12451059 · 3.24 Impact Factor