IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i8p999-1010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative Framework for Retrospective Assessment of Interim Decisions in Clinical Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Stanev

Abstract

This article presents a quantitative way of modeling the interim decisions of clinical trials. While statistical approaches tend to focus on the epistemic aspects of statistical monitoring rules, often overlooking ethical considerations, ethical approaches tend to neglect the key epistemic dimension. The proposal is a second-order decision-analytic framework. The framework provides means for retrospective assessment of interim decisions based on a clear and consistent set of criteria that combines both ethical and epistemic considerations. The framework is broadly Bayesian and addresses a fundamental question behind many concerns about clinical trials: What does it take for an interim decision (e.g., whether to stop the trial or continue) to be a good decision? Simulations illustrating the modeling of interim decisions counterfactually are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Stanev, 2016. "Quantitative Framework for Retrospective Assessment of Interim Decisions in Clinical Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(8), pages 999-1010, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:8:p:999-1010
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16655346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16655346
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16655346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rawls, John, 1974. "Some Reasons for the Maximin Criterion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 141-146, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duclos, Jean-Yves, 2006. "Liberté ou égalité?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 82(4), pages 441-476, décembre.
    2. Faravelli, Marco, 2007. "How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1399-1422, August.
    3. Marco Faravelli, 2005. "Looking for Agreement: an Experiment on Distributive Justice," Working Papers 92, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Oct 2005.
    4. Nick Hanley & Louis Dupuy & Eoin McLaughlin, 2015. "Genuine Savings And Sustainability," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 779-806, September.
    5. Grzegorz Lissowski & Tadeusz Tyszka & Wlodzimierz Okrasa, 1991. "Principles of Distributive Justice," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 98-119, March.
    6. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2013. "Individual judgments and social choice in Sen's idea of justice and democracy," Post-Print halshs-00950320, HAL.
    7. Christian Cordes, 2004. "The Human Adaptation for Culture and its Behavioral Implications," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 143-163, May.
    8. Claude Gamel, 2015. "Essai sur l’économie de « l’égalitarisme libéral . Une combinaison sélective des travaux de Rawls, Sen et Kolm," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(3), pages 347-392.
    9. Thierry Chauveau & Rahim Loufir, 1994. "Allongement de l'espérance de vie, croissance et retraites," Revue de l'OFCE, Programme National Persée, vol. 50(1), pages 29-64.
    10. Stark, Oded & Jakubek, Marcin & Falniowski, Fryderyk, 2014. "Reconciling the Rawlsian and the utilitarian approaches to the maximization of social welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 439-444.
    11. Mayerhoffer, Daniel & Schulz-Gebhard, Jan, 2023. "Social segregation, misperceptions, and emergent cyclical choice patterns," BERG Working Paper Series 186, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.
    12. Fehr, Ernst & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "The development of egalitarianism, altruism, spite and parochialism in childhood and adolescence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 369-383.
    13. Giampaolo Garzarelli & Lyndal Keeton & Aldo A. Sitoe, 2022. "Rights redistribution and COVID-19 lockdown policy," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 5-36, August.
    14. Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "Models of moral decision making: Literature review and research agenda for discrete choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 69-85.
    15. Randall Holcombe, 1980. "Contractarian model of the decline in classical liberalism," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 277-286, January.
    16. Muriel Gilardone, 2015. "Rawls's influence and counter-influence on Sen: Post-welfarism and impartiality," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 198-235, April.
    17. Philippe Mongin & Marcus Pivato, 2021. "Rawls’s difference principle and maximin rule of allocation: a new analysis," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1499-1525, June.
    18. Claude Gamel, 2022. "The "Difference Principle": Economic Rationality and Political Applicability," Post-Print halshs-03975342, HAL.
    19. Duro, Juan Antonio & Giménez-Gómez, José-Manuel & Vilella, Cori, 2020. "The allocation of CO2 emissions as a claims problem," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    20. André Barata & Maria João Cabrita, 2019. "What principle of difference for a truly egalitarian social democracy? Rereading Rawls after social democracy’s failures," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:8:p:999-1010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.