Response to Comment on "controlling for Ascertainment Bias May Introduce Control Group Bias in Prospective Nonrandomized Trials".

Zhidong Gao,Chao Wang,Siyan Zhan,Zhuang Tao,Shan Wang,Yingjiang Ye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003152

IF: 13.787

2019-01-01

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:Gao, Zhidong MD; Wang, Chao MD; Zhan, Siyan PhD; Tao, Zhuang PhD; Wang, Shan MD, PhD; Ye, Yingjiang MD, PhD Author Information

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Intention-to-treat Analysis Controls the Bias when Suffer from Noncompliance and Missing Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trial Study

Wenju Chang,Ye Wei,Jiacheng Xu,Yun‐Shi Zhong,Na Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001728

IF: 13.787

2017-01-01

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:Chang, Wenju MD; Wei, Ye MD; Xu, Jianmin MD, PhD; Chang, Wenju MD; Wei, Ye MD; Zhong, Yunshi MD; Xu, Jianmin MD, PhD; Zhong, Yunshi MD; Zhao, Naiqing PhD Author Information
Invited Commentary: Bias Attenuation And Identification Of Causal Effects With Multiple Negative Controls

Wang Miao,Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx012

2017-01-01

American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:In this commentary, we describe several extensions to the interesting and important negative control exposure approach for partial confounding adjustment in time-series analysis proposed by Flanders et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2017; 185(10): 941-949). Specifically, by leveraging the availability of exposure time series, we show that under certain additional fairly reasonable assumptions, one can incorporate both past and future exposures as multiple negative control exposures to further attenuate confounding bias. We further describe 2 specific settings in which multiple controls can be used to fully account for confounding bias; the first assumes a forward-in-time version of the familiar autoregressive model for the exposure time series, while the second combines a negative control exposure with a negative control outcome for joint indirect adjustment of confounding. We briefly illustrate how one might apply our proposed framework in time-series studies. Both the original method of Flanders et al. and our proposed extensions are particularly well-suited for time-series data such as the air pollution study considered in their paper, and as such should be considered in routine environmental health studies.
Correction To: A Selective Review of Negative Control Methods in Epidemiology

Xu Shi,Miao Wang,Tchetgen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-021-00270-9

2021-01-01

Current Epidemiology Reports

Abstract:A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-021-00270-9
A New Family of Covariate-Adjusted Response Adaptive Designs and Their Properties

Li-Xin Zhang,Fei-fang Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11766-009-0001-6

2009-01-01

Abstract:It is often important to incorporate covariate information in the design of clinical trials. In literature there are many designs of using stratification and covariate-adaptive randomization to balance certain known covariate. Recently, some covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) designs have been proposed and their asymptotic properties have been studied (Ann. Statist. 2007). However, these CARA designs usually have high variabilities. In this paper, a new family of covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) designs is presented. It is shown that the new designs have less variables and therefore are more efficient.
Corrigendum to “sex Differences in HIV Treatment Outcomes and Adherence by Exposure Groups among Adults in Guangdong, China: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study” [eclinicalmedicine 22 (2020) 100351]

Linghua Li,Tanwei Yuan,Junfeng Wang,Thomas Fitzpatrick,Quanmin Li,Peiyang Li,Xiaoping Tang,Guohong Xu,Dahui Chen,Bowen Liang,Weiping Cai,Huachun Zou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100618

IF: 15.1

2020-01-01

EClinicalMedicine

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100351.].
Response to "Comments on 'Zhang et al: Clinical trial analysis of 2019-nCoV therapy registered in China'"

Qi Zhang,Yakun Wang,Changsong Qi,Lin Shen,Jian Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25803

IF: 20.693

2020-01-01

Journal of Medical Virology

Abstract:Abstract We thank Dr. Yang and colleagues for their attention to our article1,2. And we appreciate their meaningful suggestions, which we highly agree with. With the purpose of letting the public know the overall situation of the clinical trials of new coronary pneumonia in China as soon as possible, we completed the data collection and brief analysis in a very short time. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Adaptive Hybrid Control Design for Comparative Clinical Trials with Historical Control Data

Beibei Guo,Glen Laird,Yang Song,Josh Chen,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrsssc/qlad103

2024-01-01

Abstract:We propose an adaptive hybrid control causal (AHCC) design to leverage historical control data to reduce the sample size demanded by standard randomised controlled trials (RCT). Under the causal inference framework, we define the causal estimand of the average treatment effect and derive the corresponding estimator based on the trial data and historical control data. The AHCC design takes a multistage or group sequential approach. The number of patients randomised to the concurrent control is adaptively adjusted based on the amount of information borrowed from the historical control data. At each stage, based on the interim data, the contribution of the historical control data, quantified by the effective sample size, is updated and used to determine the randomisation ratio between the treatment and control arms for the next stage, with the goal to resemble a standard RCT upon the completion of the trial. Simulation studies show that the AHCC design has desirable operating characteristics. For example, it saves on sample size when substantial information can be borrowed from the historical control, and it maintains power when little information can be borrowed from the historical control.
Response to Comment on Zaccardi et al. Duration of Type 2 Diabetes and Incidence of Cancer: An Observational Study in England. Diabetes Care 2023;46:1923–1930

Francesco Zaccardi,Suping Ling,Karen Brown,Melanie Davies,Kamlesh Khunti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dci23-0082

2024-01-16

Diabetes Care

Abstract:We thank Zhang and Giovannucci (1) for their interest in our article (2) and their comments, which allow us to further clarify some epidemiological and analytical details we mentioned in the article.

endocrinology & metabolism
Nonparametric Response-Adaptive Randomization for Continuous Responses

Zhongqiang Liu,Feifang Hu,Li-Xin Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.1900

2018-01-01

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Many response-adaptive randomization procedures have been proposed and studied over the past few decades. However, most of these procedures are based on parametric structure and do not directly apply to nonparametric models. In this paper, we propose a response-adaptive randomization procedure based on Mann-Whitney U test statistic. Under widely satisfied conditions, we derive asymptotic properties of the randomization procedure and further obtain power functions in form under Mann-Whitney U test. Simulations show the proposed procedure is more robust and more ethical than classical response-adaptive randomization procedures in some circumstances. Advantages of the procedure are also illustrated in a redesigned real clinical trial.
Response to Comment on “effect of Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load on Atherosclerotic Stenosis and Stroke”

Min Peng,Xiang Li,Yujing Liu,M. Zha,Yaqian Xia,Gelin Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5551/jat.57877-r

2020-01-01

Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis

Abstract:study without any interventions, which rendered the propensity score matching method rather irrational. Yuan and Zhou regarded the use of statins as a major confounder for evaluating atherosclerosis, and patients with a history of using statins should be excluded in this study. As we explained, this was a cross-sectional study, and no patients should be excluded. If a confounder could influence the outcomes, it should be adjusted, but not excluded.
Identifying treatment response subgroups in observational time-to-event data

Vincent Jeanselme,Chang Ho Yoon,Fabian Falck,Brian Tom,Jessica Barrett

2024-10-18

Abstract:Identifying patient subgroups with different treatment responses is an important task to inform medical recommendations, guidelines, and the design of future clinical trials. Existing approaches for subgroup analysis primarily rely on Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), in which treatment assignment is randomised. RCTs' patient cohorts are often constrained by cost, rendering them not representative of the heterogeneity of patients likely to receive treatment in real-world clinical practice. When applied to observational studies, subgroup analysis approaches suffer from significant statistical biases particularly because of the non-randomisation of treatment. Our work introduces a novel, outcome-guided method for identifying treatment response subgroups in observational studies. Our approach assigns each patient to a subgroup associated with two time-to-event distributions: one under treatment and one under control regime. It hence positions itself in between individualised and average treatment effect estimation. The assumptions of our model result in a simple correction of the statistical bias from treatment non-randomisation through inverse propensity weighting. In experiments, our approach significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art method for outcome-guided subgroup analysis in both randomised and observational treatment regimes.

Methodology,Artificial Intelligence
Rejoinder to “comment on ‘wang Et Al. (2005), Robust Estimating Functions and Bias Correction for Longitudinal Data Analysis’ by Nicola Lunardon and Giovanna Menardi”

You‐Gan Wang,Lin Xu,Min Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13262

IF: 1.701

2020-01-01

Biometrics

Abstract:BiometricsVolume 76, Issue 3 p. 1043-1044 REJOINDER Rejoinder to “Comment on ‘Wang et al. (2005), Robust estimating functions and bias correction for longitudinal data analysis’ by Nicola Lunardon and Giovanna Menardi” You-Gan Wang, Corresponding Author You-Gan Wang you-gan.wang@qut.edu.au orcid.org/0000-0003-0901-4671 School of Mathematical Sciences, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical & Statistical Frontiers, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Correspondence You-Gan Wang, School of Mathematical Sciences, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical, and Statistical Frontiers, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4001 Australia. Email: you-gan.wang@qut.edu.auSearch for more papers by this authorXu Lin, Xu Lin YZH Tech Co. Limited, Shenzhen, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorMin Zhu, Min Zhu orcid.org/0000-0002-5602-2319 Business School, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author You-Gan Wang, Corresponding Author You-Gan Wang you-gan.wang@qut.edu.au orcid.org/0000-0003-0901-4671 School of Mathematical Sciences, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical & Statistical Frontiers, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Correspondence You-Gan Wang, School of Mathematical Sciences, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical, and Statistical Frontiers, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4001 Australia. Email: you-gan.wang@qut.edu.auSearch for more papers by this authorXu Lin, Xu Lin YZH Tech Co. Limited, Shenzhen, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorMin Zhu, Min Zhu orcid.org/0000-0002-5602-2319 Business School, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 April 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13262Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume76, Issue3September 2020Pages 1043-1044 RelatedInformation
Use of Suboptimal Control Arms in Randomized Clinical Trials of Investigational Cancer Drugs in China, 2016-2021: an Observational Study

Yichen Zhang,Dingyi Chen,Siyuan Cheng,Zhizhou Liang,Lu Yang,Qian Li,Lin Bai,Huangqianyu Li,Wei Liu,Luwen Shi,Xiaodong Guan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004319

2023-01-01

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND:The use of suboptimal controls in randomized trials of new cancer drugs can produce potentially unreliable clinical efficacy results over the current standard of care and expose patients to substandard therapy. We aim to investigate the proportion of randomized trials of investigational cancer drugs that used a suboptimal control arm and the number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments in China. The association between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding statistical significance on the primary endpoint was also examined. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This observational study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs that were authorized by specific Chinese institutional review boards between 2016 and 2021, supporting investigational new drug applications of these drugs in China. The proportion of trials that used a suboptimal control arm and the total number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments were calculated. In a randomized trial for a specific condition, a comparator was deemed suboptimal if it was not recommended by clinical guidelines published in priori or if there existed a regimen with a higher level of recommendation for the indication. The final sample included 453 Phase II/III and Phase III randomized oncology trials. Overall, 60 trials (13.2%) adopted a suboptimal control arm. Among them, 58.3% (35/60) used comparators that were not recommended by a prior guideline for the indication. The cumulative number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments totaled 18,610 by the end of 2021, contributing 15.1% to the total number of enrollees of all sampled RCTs in this study. After adjusting for the year of ethical approval, region of participant recruitment, line of therapy, and cancer site, second-line therapies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.7, 95%CI [1.2, 5.9]), adjuvant therapies (aOR = 8.9, 95% CI [3.4, 23.1]), maintenance therapies (aOR = 5.2, 95% CI [1.6, 17.0]), and trials recruiting participants in China only (aOR = 4.1, 95% CI [2.1, 8.0]) were more likely to adopt a suboptimal control. For the 105 trials with publicly available results, no statistically significant difference was observed between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding positive on the primary endpoint (100.0% [12/12] versus 83.9% [78/93], p = 0.208). The main limitation of this study is its reliance on clinical guidelines that could vary across cancer types and time in assessing the quality of the control groups. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, over one-eighth of randomized trials of cancer drugs registered to apply for regulatory approval in China used a suboptimal comparator. Our results highlight the necessity to refine the design of randomized trials to generate optimal clinical evidence for new cancer therapies.
Authors' Reply to Comments on ‘sample Size Calculation for the Proportional Hazards Cure Model’

Songfeng Wang,Jiajia Zhang,Wenbin Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6491

2015-01-01

Statistics in Medicine

Abstract:Statistics in MedicineVolume 34, Issue 17 p. 2578-2580 Author's Reply Authors' Reply to comments on ‘Sample size calculation for the proportional hazards cure model’ Songfeng Wang, Songfeng Wang Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208 USASearch for more papers by this authorJiajia Zhang, Jiajia Zhang Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208 USASearch for more papers by this authorWenbin Lu, Wenbin Lu Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this author Songfeng Wang, Songfeng Wang Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208 USASearch for more papers by this authorJiajia Zhang, Jiajia Zhang Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208 USASearch for more papers by this authorWenbin Lu, Wenbin Lu Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 July 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6491Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume34, Issue1730 July 2015Pages 2578-2580 RelatedInformation
A Comparison of Approaches to Control for Confounding Factors by Regression Models

Guan Xing,Chang-Yun Lin,Chao Xing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000332743

2011-01-01

Human Heredity

Abstract:A common technique to control for confounding factors in practice is by regression adjustment. There are various versions of regression modeling in the literature, and in this paper we considered four approaches often seen in genetic association studies. We carried out both analytical and simulation studies comparing the bias of effect size estimates and examining the test sizes under the null hypothesis of no association between an outcome and an exposure. Further, we compared the methods in a nonsynonymous genome-wide scan for plasma lipoprotein(a) levels using a dataset from the Dallas Heart Study. We found that a widely employed approach that models the covariate-adjusted outcome and the exposure leads to an infranominal test size and underestimation of the exposure effect size. In conclusion, we recommend either using multiple regression models or modeling the covariate-adjusted outcome and the covariate-adjusted exposure to control for confounding factors.
Response to Chen et al and the Accompanying Commentary

Adnan Sharif,David McGiffin,Russell Strong,Torsten Trey,David Matas,Jacob Lavee,Susie Hughes,Wendy Rogers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/tp.0000000000005005

2024-05-31

Transplantation

Abstract:We question the decision by Transplantation to publish the article by Chen et al 1 in relation to the development of liver transplantation at the Sun Yat-sen First Affiliated Hospital. Furthermore, the accompanying Commentary by Ascher and Delmonico 2 provides unverified assurances that fail to acknowledge the body of evidence.

immunology,surgery,transplantation
Correction: Comparison of Four Active SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Strategies in Representative Population Sample Points: Two-Factor Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial

Andreas Deckert,Simon Anders,Ivonne Morales,Manuela De Allegri,Hoa Thi Nguyen,Aurélia Souares,Shannon McMahon,Matthias Meurer,Robin Burk,Dan Lou,Lucia Brugnara,Matthias Sand,Lisa Koeppel,Lena Maier-Hein,Tobias Ross,Tim J Adler,Stephan Brenner,Christopher Dyer,Konrad Herbst,Svetlana Ovchinnikova,Michael Marx,Paul Schnitzler,Michael Knop,Till Bärnighausen,Claudia M Denkinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/57203

2024-02-17

JMIR Public Health and Surveillance

Abstract:Related Article Correction of: https://publichealth.jmir.org/2023/1/e44204

public, environmental & occupational health
Familywise error control in multi-armed response-adaptive trials

David S. Robertson,James M. S. Wason

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13042

2018-03-15

Abstract:Response-adaptive designs allow the randomization probabilities to change during the course of a trial based on cumulated response data, so that a greater proportion of patients can be allocated to the better performing treatments. A major concern over the use of response-adaptive designs in practice, particularly from a regulatory viewpoint, is controlling the type I error rate. In particular, we show that the naive z-test can have an inflated type I error rate even after applying a Bonferroni correction. Simulation studies have often been used to demonstrate error control, but do not provide a guarantee. In this paper, we present adaptive testing procedures for normally distributed outcomes that ensure strong familywise error control, by iteratively applying the conditional invariance principle. Our approach can be used for fully sequential and block randomized trials, and for a large class of adaptive randomization rules found in the literature. We show there is a high price to pay in terms of power to guarantee familywise error control for randomization schemes with extreme allocation probabilities. However, for proposed Bayesian adaptive randomization schemes in the literature, our adaptive tests maintain or increase the power of the trial compared to the z-test. We illustrate our method using a three-armed trial in primary hypercholesterolemia.

Methodology
A Practical Analysis Procedure on Generalizing Comparative Effectiveness in the Randomized Clinical Trial to the Real-world Trialeligible Population

Kuan Jiang,Xin-xing Lai,Shu Yang,Ying Gao,Xiao-Hua Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2406.04107

2024-06-06

Applications

Abstract:When evaluating the effectiveness of a drug, a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) is often considered the gold standard due to its perfect randomization. While RCT assures strong internal validity, its restricted external validity poses challenges in extending treatment effects to the broader real-world population due to possible heterogeneity in covariates. In this paper, we introduce a procedure to generalize the RCT findings to the real-world trial-eligible population based on the adaption of existing statistical methods. We utilized the augmented inversed probability of sampling weighting (AIPSW) estimator for the estimation and omitted variable bias framework to assess the robustness of the estimate against the assumption violation caused by potentially unmeasured confounders. We analyzed an RCT comparing the effectiveness of lowering hypertension between Songling Xuemaikang Capsule (SXC), a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and Losartan as an illustration. The generalization results indicated that although SXC is less effective in lowering blood pressure than Losartan on week 2, week 4, and week 6, there is no statistically significant difference among the trial-eligible population at week 8, and the generalization is robust against potential unmeasured confounders.
[Methods for Controlling and Evaluating Residual Confounding in the Association Analysis of Observational Study with a Multicenter Database].

J X Guo,H Y Zhao,S Y Zhan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20230216-00083

2023-01-01

Abstract:The observational research based on big data in healthcare has attracted increasing attention, with the control and evaluation of residual confounding being the critical issue that needs to be solved urgently. This review summarized the methods for statistical adjustment and sensitivity analysis of residual confounding in the association analysis with a multicenter database. Based on individual-level data, the residual confounding can be adjusted in each subcenter using methods such as regression discontinuity design, while the pooled estimate can be obtained as a weighted average. Based on the center-level results, the Bayesian Meta-analysis method can adjust the pooled estimates. The sensitivity analysis of residual confounding can also be carried out using center-level data to calculate the E-value, p^(q), T^(r, q) and G^r,q. The abovementioned methods should be selected reasonably according to the requirements for practical applications, advantages, and disadvantages. For example, the use of subcenter individual data for residual confounding adjustment usually needs strict study design and frequent coordination; the Bayesian Meta-analysis is based on some strong assumptions; the interpretation of the results in the sensitivity analysis, such as E-value requires professional judgment to assess the risk of residual confounding. Therefore, the methods for controlling and evaluating residual confounding in association analysis based on multicenter databases still need further development and improvement.

Response to Comment on "controlling for Ascertainment Bias May Introduce Control Group Bias in Prospective Nonrandomized Trials".

Intention-to-treat Analysis Controls the Bias when Suffer from Noncompliance and Missing Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trial Study

Invited Commentary: Bias Attenuation And Identification Of Causal Effects With Multiple Negative Controls

Correction To: A Selective Review of Negative Control Methods in Epidemiology

A New Family of Covariate-Adjusted Response Adaptive Designs and Their Properties

Corrigendum to “sex Differences in HIV Treatment Outcomes and Adherence by Exposure Groups among Adults in Guangdong, China: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study” [eclinicalmedicine 22 (2020) 100351]

Response to "Comments on 'Zhang et al: Clinical trial analysis of 2019-nCoV therapy registered in China'"

Adaptive Hybrid Control Design for Comparative Clinical Trials with Historical Control Data

Response to Comment on Zaccardi et al. Duration of Type 2 Diabetes and Incidence of Cancer: An Observational Study in England. Diabetes Care 2023;46:1923–1930

Nonparametric Response-Adaptive Randomization for Continuous Responses

Response to Comment on “effect of Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load on Atherosclerotic Stenosis and Stroke”

Identifying treatment response subgroups in observational time-to-event data

Rejoinder to “comment on ‘wang Et Al. (2005), Robust Estimating Functions and Bias Correction for Longitudinal Data Analysis’ by Nicola Lunardon and Giovanna Menardi”

Use of Suboptimal Control Arms in Randomized Clinical Trials of Investigational Cancer Drugs in China, 2016-2021: an Observational Study

Authors' Reply to Comments on ‘sample Size Calculation for the Proportional Hazards Cure Model’

A Comparison of Approaches to Control for Confounding Factors by Regression Models

Response to Chen et al and the Accompanying Commentary

Correction: Comparison of Four Active SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Strategies in Representative Population Sample Points: Two-Factor Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial

Familywise error control in multi-armed response-adaptive trials

A Practical Analysis Procedure on Generalizing Comparative Effectiveness in the Randomized Clinical Trial to the Real-world Trialeligible Population

[Methods for Controlling and Evaluating Residual Confounding in the Association Analysis of Observational Study with a Multicenter Database].