Simulation studies are computer experiments that involve creating data by pseudo‐random sampling. A key strength of simulation studies is the ability to understand the behavior of statistical methods because some “truth” (usually some parameter/s of interest) is known from the process of generating the data. This allows us to consider properties of methods, such as bias. While widely used, simulation studies are often poorly designed, analyzed, and reported. This tutorial outlines the rationale for using simulation studies and offers guidance for design, execution, analysis, reporting, and presentation. In particular, this tutorial provides a structured approach for planning and reporting simulation studies, which involves defining aims, data‐generating mechanisms, estimands, methods, and performance measures (“ADEMP”); coherent terminology for simulation studies; guidance on coding simulation studies; a critical discussion of key performance measures and their estimation; guidance on structuring tabular and graphical presentation of results; and new graphical presentations. With a view to describing recent practice, we review 100 articles taken from Volume 34 of Statistics in Medicine, which included at least one simulation study and identify areas for improvement.

The purpose of this study was to determine the cerebrovascular risk stratification potential of baseline degree of stenosis, clinical features, and ultrasonic plaque characteristics in patients with asymptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis

BackgroundMultiple imputation is a commonly used method for handling incomplete covariates as it can provide valid inference when data are missing at random. This depends on being able to correctly specify the parametric model used to impute missing values, which may be difficult in many realistic settings. Imputation by predictive mean matching (PMM) borrows an observed value from a donor with a similar predictive mean; imputation by local residual draws (LRD) instead borrows the donor’s residual. Both methods relax some assumptions of parametric imputation, promising greater robustness when the imputation model is misspecified.MethodsWe review development of PMM and LRD and outline the various forms available, and aim to clarify some choices about how and when they should be used. We compare performance to fully parametric imputation in simulation studies, first when the imputation model is correctly specified and then when it is misspecified.ResultsIn using PMM or LRD we strongly caution against using a single donor, the default value in some implementations, and instead advocate sampling from a pool of around 10 donors. We also clarify which matching metric is best. Among the current MI software there are several poor implementations.ConclusionsPMM and LRD may have a role for imputing covariates (i) which are not strongly associated with outcome, and (ii) when the imputation model is thought to be slightly but not grossly misspecified. Researchers should spend efforts on specifying the imputation model correctly, rather than expecting predictive mean matching or local residual draws to do the work.

BackgroundAdjustment for prognostic covariates can lead to increased power in the analysis of randomized trials. However, adjusted analyses are not often performed in practice.MethodsWe used simulation to examine the impact of covariate adjustment on 12 outcomes from 8 studies across a range of therapeutic areas. We assessed (1) how large an increase in power can be expected in practice; and (2) the impact of adjustment for covariates that are not prognostic.ResultsAdjustment for known prognostic covariates led to large increases in power for most outcomes. When power was set to 80% based on an unadjusted analysis, covariate adjustment led to a median increase in power to 92.6% across the 12 outcomes (range 80.6 to 99.4%). Power was increased to over 85% for 8 of 12 outcomes, and to over 95% for 5 of 12 outcomes. Conversely, the largest decrease in power from adjustment for covariates that were not prognostic was from 80% to 78.5%.ConclusionsAdjustment for known prognostic covariates can lead to substantial increases in power, and should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of randomized trials. The potential benefits of adjusting for a small number of possibly prognostic covariates in trials with moderate or large sample sizes far outweigh the risks of doing so, and so should also be considered.

Many clinical trials restrict randomisation using stratified blocks or minimisation to balance prognostic factors across treatment groups. It is widely acknowledged in the statistical literature that the subsequent analysis should reflect the design of the study, and any stratification or minimisation variables should be adjusted for in the analysis. However, a review of recent general medical literature showed only 14 of 41 eligible studies reported adjusting their primary analysis for stratification or minimisation variables. We show that balancing treatment groups using stratification leads to correlation between the treatment groups. If this correlation is ignored and an unadjusted analysis is performed, standard errors for the treatment effect will be biased upwards, resulting in 95% confidence intervals that are too wide, type I error rates that are too low and a reduction in power. Conversely, an adjusted analysis will give valid inference. We explore the extent of this issue using simulation for continuous, binary and time-to-event outcomes where treatment is allocated using stratified block randomisation or minimisation.

Objectives To assess how often stratified randomisation is used, whether analysis adjusted for all balancing variables, and whether the method of randomisation was adequately reported, and to reanalyse a previously reported trial to assess the impact of ignoring balancing factors in the analysis.Design Review of published trials and reanalysis of a previously reported trial. Participants 258 trials published in 2010 in the four journals. Cluster randomised, crossover, non-randomised, single arm, and phase I or II trials were excluded, as were trials reporting secondary analyses, interim analyses, or results that had been previously published in 2010. Setting Main outcome measuresWhether the method of randomisation was adequately reported, how often balanced randomisation was used, and whether balancing factors were adjusted for in the analysis.Results Reanalysis of MIST2 showed that an unadjusted analysis led to larger P values and a loss of power. The review of published trials showed that balanced randomisation was common, with 163 trials (63%) using at least one balancing variable. The most common methods of balancing were stratified permuted blocks (n=85) and minimisation (n=27). The method of randomisation was unclear in 37% of trials. Most trials that balanced on centre or prognostic factors were not adequately analysed; only 26% of trials adjusted for all balancing factors in their primary analysis. Trials that did not adjust for balancing factors in their analysis were less likely to show a statistically significant result (unadjusted 57% v adjusted 78%, P=0.02). ConclusionBalancing on centre or prognostic factors is common in trials but often poorly described, and the implications of balancing are poorly understood. Trialists should adjust their primary analysis for balancing factors to obtain correct P values and confidence intervals and to avoid an unnecessary loss in power.

Key Points Routine staging by PET-CT identifies all clinically relevant marrow involvement by DLBCL. Cases with marrow involvement identified by PET-CT have PFS and overall survival similar to stage IV cases without marrow involvement.

Although one third of neonates enrolled in this study developed thrombocytopenia of <20 x 10(9) platelets per L, 91% did not develop major hemorrhage. Most platelet transfusions were given to neonates with thrombocytopenia with no bleeding or minor bleeding only.