Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials.

By S. Senn. 1994

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The Econometrics of Randomized Experiments (2016, background): “See for additional discussions Lesaffre and Senn (2003), Samii and Aronow (2012), Rosenbaum (2002), Lin (2013), Schochet (2010), Young (2016), Senn (1994).”
Limitations of individual causal models, causal graphs, and ignorability assumptions, as illustrated by random confounding and design unfaithfulness (2015, background): “The blindness of DAGs and ignorability conditions to random imbalance and confounding is addressed by traditional recommendations to adjust for baseline prognostic factors to improve precision [7, 12], and to use estimated treatment probabilities even if the true treatment probabilities are known [2”
A critical appraisal of propensity‐score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003 (2008, background): “Senn writes that, in an RCT, ‘over all the randomizations the groups are balanced; and that for a particular randomization they are unbalanced’ [10].”
A note on non‐parametric ANCOVA for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials (2003, background): “correct for these imbalances and thereby estimate and test the treatment e ect as if the two groups had been perfectly balanced [3].”
Propensity score matching and variations on the balancing test (2011, unknown): “See, for example, Begg (1990) and Senn (1994).”
Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problems (2002, background): “Thus, P-values for baseline di�erences do not serve a useful purpose [ 23 , 24], since they are not testing a useful scienti�c hypothesis.”
Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples (2009, background): “Senn writes that, in a RCT, ‘over all the randomizations the groups are balanced; and that for a particular randomization they are unbalanced’ [35].”
Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference (2008, background): “Senn (1994), page 1716, explained that this ‘common procedure’ is ‘philosophically unsound, of no practical value, and potentially misleading’.”
Effect of heart rate control with esmolol on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized clinical trial. (2013, unknown): “001 Length of ICU stay, d Median (IQR) 19 (11-27) 14 (7-25) .”