TY - JOUR T1 - Statistical Decision Properties of Imprecise Trials Assessing COVID-19 Drugs JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.05.26.20114009 SP - 2020.05.26.20114009 AU - Charles F. Manski AU - Aleksey Tetenov Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/15/2020.05.26.20114009.abstract N2 - As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, researchers are reporting findings of randomized trials comparing standard care with care augmented by experimental drugs. The trials have small sample sizes, so estimates of treatment effects are imprecise. Seeing imprecision, clinicians reading research articles may find it difficult to decide when to treat patients with experimental drugs. Whatever decision criterion one uses, there is always some probability that random variation in trial outcomes will lead to prescribing sub-optimal treatments. A conventional practice when comparing standard care and an innovation is to choose the innovation only if the estimated treatment effect is positive and statistically significant. This practice defers to standard care as the status quo. To evaluate decision criteria, we use the concept of near optimality, which jointly considers the probability and magnitude of decision errors. An appealing decision criterion from this perspective is the empirical success rule, which chooses the treatment with the highest observed average patient outcome in the trial. Considering the design of recent and ongoing COVID-19 trials, we show that the empirical success rule yields treatment results that are much closer to optimal than those generated by prevailing decision criteria based on hypothesis tests.We have benefitted from the comments of Michael Gmeiner, Valentyn Litvin, Francesca Molinari, and John Mullahy. Tetenov has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation through grant number 100018-192580.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementTetenov has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation through grant number 100018_192580.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study did not perform original human-subjects research and, hence, did not require IRB approval.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe MATLAB code used to perform the computations is available from Aleksey Tetenov at https://tetenov.com/near_optimality.zip https://tetenov.com/near_optimality.zip https://tetenov.com/near_optimality_TableS1.csv https://tetenov.com/near_optimality_TableS2.csv ER -