↓ Skip to main content

How to assess success of treatment when using multiple doses: the case of misoprostol for medical abortion

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How to assess success of treatment when using multiple doses: the case of misoprostol for medical abortion
Published in
Trials, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-1035-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Armando H. Seuc, Iqbal H. Shah, Moazzam Ali, Claudia Diaz-Olavarrieta, Marleen Temmerman

Abstract

The assessment of treatment success in clinical trials when multiple (repeated) doses (courses) are involved is quite common, for example, in the case of infertility treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART), and medical abortion using misoprostol alone or in combination with mifepristone. Under these or similar circumstances, most researchers assess success using binomial proportions after a certain number of consecutive doses, and some have used survival analysis. In this paper we discuss the main problems in using binomial proportions to summarize (the overall) efficacy after two or more consecutive doses of the relevant treatment, particularly for the case of misoprostol in medical abortion studies. We later discuss why the survival analysis is best suited under these circumstances, and illustrate this by using simulated data. The formulas required for the binomial proportion and survival analysis (without and with competing risks) approaches are summarized and analytically compared. Additionally, numerical results are computed and compared between the two approaches, for several theoretical scenarios. The main conceptual limitations of the binomial proportion approach are identified and discussed, caused mainly by the presence of censoring and competing risks, and it is demonstrated how survival analysis can solve these problems. In general, the binomial proportion approach tends to underestimate the "real" success rate, and tends to overestimate the corresponding standard error. Depending on the rates of censored observations or competing events between repeated doses of the treatment, the bias of the binomial proportion approach as compared to the survival analysis approaches varies; however, the use of the binomial approach is unjustified as the survival analysis options are well known and available in multiple statistical packages. Our conclusions also apply to other situations where success is estimated after multiple (repeated) doses (courses) of the treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 35%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Master 2 9%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Social Sciences 4 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 22%