Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Patient recruitment forecasting in clinical trials using time-dependent Poisson-gamma model and homogeneity testing criteria

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Poisson-gamma approximation lets trial planners forecast recruitment analytically even when rates change over time.

desk verdict New PG homogeneity test with honest power analysis; the time-dependent PG sum approximation is unproven and the moving-window example is oversold. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17393 v1 pith:GTRYGJRI submitted 2024-11-26 stat.ME

Volodymyr Anisimov , Lucas Oliver This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62P1060G5562F03
keywords patientrecruitmentforecastingPoisson-gammamodeltime-dependentrateshomogeneitytestingclinicaltrialsinterimanalysismovingwindowmixedPoissonprocess
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper extends the standard Poisson-gamma (PG) recruitment model for clinical trials to allow time-dependent recruitment rates, and shows that the total recruitment process across centres can still be approximated by a single PG variable with moment-matched parameters. It introduces a set of homogeneity tests—non-parametric Poisson, parametric Poisson, and PG-based—to detect whether rates have changed between two intervals, and recommends a moving-window re-estimation strategy for interim prediction when rates are declining. If correct, trial operations can obtain analytic means and predictive bounds for patient recruitment without Monte Carlo simulation, provided the shape of the rate function r(t) is known.

What carries the argument

The key object is the Poisson-gamma (PG) approximation of the sum of independent PG processes with time-dependent rates. The approximation matches the mean and variance of the cumulative rate of the country-level process to those of a single gamma distribution, yielding closed-form predictive mean and negative-binomial quantile bounds (via qnbinom). This approximation is what allows analytic forecasting without Monte Carlo simulation and what underlies the PG homogeneity test in Section 4.5.

What would settle it

A simulation study where the true rate function r(t) (e.g., a steep exponential decay) is combined with a small number of centres (say, 2-3) and strongly time-varying rates; if the observed quantiles of the total recruitment deviate from the negative-binomial quantiles predicted by Lemma 3.1 by more than the claimed $10^{{-4}}$ error, the approximation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Lemma 3.1: the distribution of the total recruitment process n(Is, t) over a country or region, where individual centres follow a PG process with time-dependent rates, can be well approximated by a PG random variable PG(A(Is, t), B(Is, t)) with moment-matched parameters A = $E^{2}$/$S^{2}$ and B = E/$S^{2}$. Building on this, the paper shows that the Poisson and Poisson-gamma homogeneity tests can detect time-dependent recruitment rates at an interim analysis, and that a moving-window re-estimation strategy improves forecasting when rates change. The authors further provide analytic formulas for the number of centres needed to detect a given proportional rate difference with a given confidence level, and demonstrate through simulation that when rates are declining steadily, the moving-window approach outperforms the standard all-data approach, while the best predictions come from knowing the rate function r(t).

Load-bearing premise

The analytic forecasting and the PG homogeneity test depend on Lemma 3.1, which asserts that the sum of independent PG processes with time-dependent rates is well approximated by a single PG variable with moment-matched parameters; the accuracy of this approximation for small numbers of centres or strongly time-varying rates is not proven here, only asserted based on numerical evidence for the homogeneous case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, trial planners can obtain analytic predictive means and confidence bounds for patient recruitment at country and global levels without running Monte Carlo simulations, as long as the rate function r(t) is known.
  • The homogeneity tests provide an interim stage check for time-dependent recruitment rates, enabling operational decisions about whether to switch from a standard PG model to a moving-window or time-dependent model.
  • The formulas for the required number of centres to detect a given proportional rate difference (e.g., N = 2 z_delta^2 / (m1 L) * (1+q)/(1-q)^2 for the non-parametric Poisson test) give trial planners a direct tool for designing monitoring schemes.
  • The moving-window re-estimation strategy, using only the most recent data window for parameter estimation, is shown in simulations to improve prediction accuracy when rates are declining steadily, compared to using all historical data.
  • If the true rate function r(t) is known and correctly estimated, the time-dependent maximum likelihood approach yields substantially better predictions than both the all-data and moving-window approaches, as shown in the simulation example.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The moment-matched PG approximation could also be applied to other doubly stochastic Poisson processes where the mixing distribution is not gamma, by matching two moments to a gamma surrogate; the accuracy would then depend on the tail behaviour of the true mixing distribution.
  • The authors' recommendation to use a moving window of 2–4 months could be tested against adaptive window-length selection based on the observed rate change magnitude, e.g., choosing the window that minimizes prediction error in a rolling validation.
  • The paper's homogeneity tests are conditional on a fixed schedule of centre initiations; an extension could treat centre activation times as random, which would change the probability p in the binomial test and likely require a different test statistic.
  • The PG test's requirement of many more centres to achieve 80% power (up to ~2000 for dramatic rate declines) suggests that for typical late-phase trials, the non-parametric Poisson test may be the only practical interim check, and the PG test should be reserved for trials with very large numbers of centres.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a time-dependent extension of the Poisson-gamma (PG) recruitment model in which each centre's recruitment rate is a gamma-distributed baseline multiplied by a common non-negative rate-shape function r(t). It proposes approximating the aggregate count over a set of centres by a single moment-matched PG variable, derives analytic predictive bounds from that approximation, and develops three tests for rate homogeneity: an exact conditional binomial test, a Poisson parametric test, and a PG parametric test. The paper derives asymptotic sample-size relations for the Poisson tests, calibrates critical values and evaluates power by Monte Carlo, and recommends a moving-window parameter re-estimation strategy at interim analyses. A single simulated artificial trial is used to illustrate the forecasting approach.

Significance. If the moment-matched PG approximation is reliable for time-dependent rates, the analytic predictive bounds and the PG homogeneity test would be practically useful because they avoid Monte Carlo for country/global forecasts. The paper has clear strengths: Lemma 4.1's conditional binomial test is exact under the stated Poisson model; the variance calculations for the non-parametric and parametric Poisson test statistics appear correct; and the power analysis is unusually honest, showing that controlling the expected P-value yields only around 70% power and then searching for sample sizes that give 80%. The simulation-based calibration of the critical value a(delta) is a constructive way to handle discreteness. The main weakness is that the central PG-sum approximation is asserted rather than established for the time-dependent case, and the practical forecasting comparison rests on a single simulated trajectory.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Lemma 3.1] The approximation of n(Is,t) by PG(A(Is,t), B(Is,t)) is the load-bearing device of the paper: it is used in Section 3 for the analytic predictive bounds and in Section 4.5 for the PG test P-values. As written, Lemma 3.1 is not proved; the text cites numerical calculations in [9] for the homogeneous case and asserts an extension to time-dependent rates with different gamma parameters. When r(t) is time-dependent and activation times differ, the cumulative rates Lambda_i are gamma variables with unequal scales, and matching two moments of the count does not control higher moments or tail quantiles. I ask for either a proof/error bound for the time-dependent case or a systematic numerical verification covering small numbers of centres (N = 2, 3, 5, 10) and strongly time-varying r(t) (e.g., the 2.5x-to-0.2x exponential decline used in Section 5). The verification should report tail discrepancies, such as maximum absolute differences between the true and approximate CDFs, and the achieved coverage of the 80% predictive intervals, because these quantities drive the paper's practical claims.
  2. [Section 4.6, Tables 4 and 5] The calibrated critical values for the PG test in Table 4 are approximately 0.066-0.074, not 0.1, whereas for the Poisson test in Table 1 they are approximately 0.092-0.100. The paper does not comment on this discrepancy. This matters because the practical recommendation in Section 6 is to use P-values with a threshold delta; if a practitioner uses the uncalibrated threshold 0.1, the Type I error will differ from the nominal delta, and the powers reported in Tables 4-5 are computed with the calibrated a(delta), not with 0.1. Please state the uncalibrated Type I error, explain the source of the deviation (discreteness, parameter estimation, or the PG approximation), and either recommend calibration or show that the deviation is negligible in the intended operating range.
  3. [Section 5] The claim that a moving-window re-estimation strategy improves forecasting is supported by only one simulated trajectory. In that example the moving-window forecast (day 287) is only 18 days closer to the actual completion (day 384) than the all-data forecast (day 269), and both forecasts are far from the truth because the continuing decline is not extrapolated. The text acknowledges this, but it still concludes that the moving-window approach is an improvement. Please replace this with a repeated-simulation study reporting a forecast error metric (e.g., median/mean absolute error of completion time or coverage of predictive intervals) over multiple replications and over several scenarios with different rate-decline shapes and window lengths. This is needed to substantiate the interim re-projection recommendation that is part of the paper's stated contribution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, after Eq. (11)] The sentence 'Otherwise, the mean rate in [a,b] is smaller' is not logically implied by PUpper > delta; the lower P-value PLow must be used, and the criterion should be stated as 'if PLow <= delta, conclude the rate in [a,b] is smaller'.
  2. [Section 1 and reference [14]] The paper relies on [14] (to appear) for the core time-dependent PG methodology and on [9] for the PG-sum approximation. For a self-contained manuscript, please summarize the relevant results from [14] or provide a published/available version, and clarify what part of Lemma 3.1 is proven versus numerically verified in [9].
  3. [Throughout] Terminology is inconsistent between 'centres' and 'sites' in the text and in figures; please harmonize the wording, and clarify in Section 3.2.1 that the indexing in 'veclaik[k] = 0 for k < vecu[i]' refers to positions on the daily simulation grid.
  4. [Reference list] Reference [31] gives page numbers '85-506', which appear to be a typo; please verify the correct pagination or article numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: central predictions and tests are evaluated by simulation and defined conditional probabilities, though Lemma 3.1 leans on the first author's prior numerical results.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters to the quantities it then calls predictions. Interim forecasts are produced from maximum-likelihood estimates under the Poisson-gamma model, and the Poisson and Poisson-gamma homogeneity tests are defined as conditional tail probabilities whose critical values are calibrated by Monte Carlo simulation (e.g., a(delta) in Eq. (23)) rather than asserted to be exact. The one load-bearing reliance on prior work is Lemma 3.1, which states that a sum of independent time-dependent PG centre processes is well approximated by PG(A(Is,t), B(Is,t)); the support given is a citation to the first author's prior numerical work [9], with no proof supplied in this paper. That is an unproven approximation and a correctness risk for small numbers of centres or strongly time-varying rates, but it is not circular: the approximation inputs E(Is,t) and S^2(Is,t) from Eq. (5) are not defined in terms of the predicted counts or of the test outcomes, and no fitted constant forces the subsequent predictive intervals or P-values. The simulation-based power and Type I error analyses provide independent evaluation under known generative parameters. Therefore no claimed prediction reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's inputs are the standard PG model parameters (alpha, beta), estimated from data, an unspecified rate-shape function r(t), and a chosen moving-window length. The main unpaid ingredient is the accuracy of the PG summation approximation, which is borrowed from prior work by the first author. No new physical or model entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Gamma shape and rate parameters (alpha, beta) = estimated by maximum likelihood from pooled interval data
    The PG test and analytic forecasts depend on these parameters, which are fitted to observed recruitment data via maximum likelihood in Section 4.5.
  • Rate-shape function r(t) = a known function in the analytic method; unspecified in practice
    The analytic forecasting methodology requires r(t) to be specified a priori or estimated separately; the paper does not provide a method to estimate its form from data.
  • Moving window length = 2, 3, or 4 months recommended; 60 days used in the simulation example
    The moving-window re-estimation method requires choosing a window length, and the paper gives a heuristic recommendation without a data-driven criterion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Centre recruitment rates are gamma distributed and constant except for a common multiplicative time factor r(t).
    Core model assumption of the Poisson-gamma framework, restated in Sections 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption The sum of independent time-dependent PG processes is well approximated by a PG variable with moment-matched parameters.
    Lemma 3.1 is imported from [9] based on numerical results; no proof is given in this paper.
  • standard math Patients arrive according to independent Poisson processes in each centre.
    Foundational assumption of the Poisson-gamma model, stated in Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper The function r(t) is known or can be estimated from historical data.
    The analytic forecasting results in Section 3 and the known-r(t) simulation in Section 5 assume r(t) is known, while Section 6 concedes this is not true in practice.
  • standard math Normal approximation for the test statistic X in power calculations.
    Used in Section 4.2.1 to derive the sample-size formula, and validated against Monte Carlo simulation in Figure 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Patient recruitment forecasting in clinical trials using time-dependent Poisson-gamma model and homogeneity testing criteria." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTRYGJRI

@misc{pith2026241117393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Patient recruitment forecasting in clinical trials using time-dependent Poisson-gamma model and homogeneity testing criteria},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTRYGJRI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17393}
}
read the original abstract

Clinical trials in the modern era are characterized by their complexity and high costs and usually involve hundreds/thousands of patients to be recruited across multiple clinical centres in many countries, as typically a rather large sample size is required in order to prove the efficiency of a particular drug. As the imperative to recruit vast numbers of patients across multiple clinical centres has become a major challenge, an accurate forecasting of patient recruitment is one of key factors for the operational success of clinical trials. A classic Poisson-gamma (PG) recruitment model assumes time-homogeneous recruitment rates. However, there can be potential time-trends in the recruitment driven by various factors, e.g. seasonal changes, exhaustion of patients on particular treatments in some centres, etc. Recently a few authors considered some extensions of the PG model to time-dependent rates under some particular assumptions. In this paper, a natural generalization of the original PG model to a PG model with non-homogeneous time-dependent rates is introduced. It is also proposed a new analytic methodology for modelling/forecasting patient recruitment using a Poisson-gamma approximation of recruitment processes in different countries and globally. The properties of some tests on homogeneity of the rates (non-parametric one using a Poisson model and two parametric tests using Poisson and PG model) are investigated. The techniques for modeling and simulation of the recruitment using time-dependent model are discussed. For re-projection of the remaining recruitment it is proposed to use a moving window and re-estimating parameters at every interim time. The results are supported by simulation of some artificial data sets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dependence of the number of centres/sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparing the number of centres/sites required to get [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dependence of the number of centres needed to detect the difference in rates by Monte Carlo simulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing the number of centres/sites required to get Upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In the following simulation, ri(t) and parameters (αi , βi) are the same across all centres. The simulated trajectory of recruitment is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average global rate function with exponential decay. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated trajectory of recruitment in all centres with time in days. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reprojection at 200 days using all data and maximum likelihood technique. Reprojected mean and bounds in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reprojection at 200 days using most recent 60 days of data and standard maximum likelihood technique. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reprojection at 200 days using time-dependent maximum likelihood technique, assuming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Anisimov and M

    V . Anisimov and M. Austin, Centralized statistical monitoring of clinical trial enrollment performance,Communi- cations in Statistics - Case Studies and Data Analysis , 6, 4, 2020, pp. 392–410

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Anisimov and V

    V . Anisimov and V . Fedorov, Modelling, prediction and adaptive adjustment of recruitment in multicentre trials, Statistics in Medicine, 26, 27, 2007, pp. 4958–4975

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    Anisimov and V

    V . Anisimov and V . Fedorov, Design of multicentre clinical trials with random enrolment, Chapter 25, in book Advances in Statistical Methods for the Health Sciences ; Series: Statistics for Industry and Technology, Balakrishnan, N.; Auget, J.-L.; Mesbah, M.; Molenberghs, G., Birkh¨ auser Boston, 2007, pp. 387–400

    work page 2007

  4. [3]

    Anisimov, D

    V . Anisimov, D. Downing and V . Fedorov, Recruitment in multicentre trials: prediction and adjustment, inmODa 8 - Advances in Model-Oriented Design and Analysis , 2007, pp. 1–8

    work page 2007

  5. [4]

    Anisimov, Predictive modelling of recruitment and drug supply in multicenter clinical trials

    V . Anisimov, Predictive modelling of recruitment and drug supply in multicenter clinical trials. In:Proc. of the Joint Statistical Meeting, Biopharmaceutical Section, Washington, DC, American Statistical Association, 2009, pp. 1248–1259

    work page 2009

  6. [5]

    Anisimov, Statistical modeling of clinical trials (recruitment and randomization),Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 40, 19-20, 2011, pp

    V . Anisimov, Statistical modeling of clinical trials (recruitment and randomization),Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 40, 19-20, 2011, pp. 3684–3699

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Anisimov, Predictive event modelling in multicentre clinical trials with waiting time to response,Pharmaceutical Statistics, v

    V . Anisimov, Predictive event modelling in multicentre clinical trials with waiting time to response,Pharmaceutical Statistics, v. 10, iss. 6, 2011, pp. 517-522

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    Real-time prediction of clinical trial enrollment and event counts: a review

    V . Anisimov, Discussion on the paper "Real-time prediction of clinical trial enrollment and event counts: a review" by D.F. Heitjan et al., Contemporary Clinical Trials, 40, 2016, pp. 7–10

    work page 2016

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    V . Anisimov, Modern analytic techniques for predictive modelling of clinical trial operations, Chapter 8, in book Quantitative Methods in Pharmaceutical Research and Development: Concepts and Applications , O. Marchenko, N. Katenka (Eds), Springer International Publ., 2020, p...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Anisimov and M

    V . Anisimov and M. Austin, Modeling restricted enrollment and optimal cost-efficient design in multicenter clinical trials, arXiv:2212.12930, 2022, 22 pages

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Data Analysis and Related Applications 2. Multivariate, Health and Demographic Data Analysis

    V . Anisimov, S. Gormley, R. Baverstock and C. Kineza, Predicting event counts in event-driven clinical trials accounting for cure and ongoing recruitment, Chapter 9, in book "Data Analysis and Related Applications 2. Multivariate, Health and Demographic Data Analysis", V . 10...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Anisimov and M

    V . Anisimov and M. Austin, Forecasting and optimizing patient enrolment in clinical trials under various restric- tions, chapter 23, in book: Stochastic Processes, Statistical Methods, and Engineering Mathematics , Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics 408, 2023, p...

    2023

  5. [13]

    V . Anisimov, An analytic methodology for forecasting patient enrolment performance in multicentre clinical trials, ICoMS ’23: Proceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Mathematics and Statistics, July 14-16, 2023, Leipzig, Germany. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2023,...

    2023

  6. [14]

    V . Anisimov, Modelling/forecasting patient recruitment in clinical trials using Poisson-gamma model with time- dependent rates, ICoMS ’24: Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Mathematics and Statistics", June 23-25, 2024, Amarante, Portugal, ACM, New York,...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Bakhshi, S

    A. Bakhshi, S. Senn and A. Phillips, Some issues in predicting patient recruitment in multi-centre clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 32(30), 2013, pp. 5458–5468

    2013

  8. [16]

    Barnard, L

    K.D. Barnard, L. Dent and A. Cook, A systematic review of models to predict recruitment to multicentre clinical trials, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 63, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Bernardo and A.F.M

    J.M. Bernardo and A.F.M. Smith, Bayesian Theory, John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    N. Best, I. Perevozskaya, D. Lunn, G. Archer, J. Euesden, C. Fillmore, V . Sherina, D. Thompson and M. Zwierzyna, ’Predicting the COVID-19 pandemic impact on clinical trial recruitment’, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 14(1), 2022, pp. 67–79

    2022

  11. [19]

    Carter, S.C

    R.E. Carter, S.C. Sonne and K.T. Brady, Practical considerations for estimating clinical trial accrual periods: Application to a multi-center effectiveness study, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2005, 5, pp. 11–15

    2005

  12. [20]

    Gajewski, S.D

    B.J. Gajewski, S.D. Simon and S.E. Carlson, Predicting accrual in clinical trials with Bayesian posterior predictive distributions. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 2008, pp. 2328–2340. 22 Recruitment forecasting using time-dependent Poisson-gamma model

    2008

  13. [21]

    Gkioni, R

    E. Gkioni, R. Riusd, S. Dodda and C. Gamblea, A systematic review describes models for recruitment prediction at the design stage of a clinical trial, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 115, 2019, pp. 141–149

    2019

  14. [22]

    Heitjan, Z

    D.F. Heitjan, Z. Ge and G.S. Ying, Real-time prediction of clinical trial enrollment and event counts: a review, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 45, part A, 2015, pp. 26–33

    2015

  15. [23]

    Y . Lan, G. Tang and D.F. Heitjan, Statistical modeling and prediction of clinical trial recruitment.Statistics in Medicine, 38(6), 2019, pp. 945-955

    2019

  16. [24]

    Mijoule, S

    G. Mijoule, S. Savy and N. Savy, Models for patients’ recruitment in clinical trials and sensitivity analysis, Statistics in Medicine, 31(16), 2012, pp. 1655–1674

    2012

  17. [25]

    Minois, V

    M.N. Minois, V . Lauwers-Cances, S. Savy, M. Attal, S. Andrieua, V . Anisimov and N. Savy, Using Poisson-gamma model to evaluate the duration of recruitment process when historical trials are available. Statistics in Medicine, 36(23), 2017, pp. 3605–3620

    2017

  18. [26]

    Perperoglou, Y

    A. Perperoglou, Y . Zhang, and D-K. Kipourou, Modeling time-varying recruitment rates in multicenter clinical trials, Biometrical J., v. 65, iss. 6, Aug 2023, pp. 1–12

    2023

  19. [27]

    Senn, Statistical Issues in Drug Development

    S. Senn, Statistical Issues in Drug Development . Wiley: Chichester, 1997

    1997

  20. [28]

    Senn, Some controversies in planning and analysis multi-center trials

    S. Senn, Some controversies in planning and analysis multi-center trials. Statistics in Medicine , 17, 1998, pp. 1753–1756

    1998

  21. [29]

    Turchetta, N

    A. Turchetta, N. Savy, D. A. Stephens, E. E.M. Moodie, and M. B. Klein, A time-dependent Poisson-Gamma model for recruitment forecasting in multicenter studies, Statistics in Medicine, 42, 2023, pp. 4193–4206

    2023

  22. [30]

    Turchetta, E

    A. Turchetta, E. E.M. Moodie, D. A. Stephens, N. Savy, and Z. Moodie, The time-dependent Poisson-gamma model in practice: Recruitment forecasting in HIV trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials, June, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Urbas, C

    S. Urbas, C. Sherlock, and P. Metcalfe, Interim recruitment prediction for multi-center clinical trials, Biostatistics, 2022, pp. 85–506. 23

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.