Researcher profile

Suzie Cro

Suzie Cro contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

From aggressive to conservative early stopping in Bayesian group sequential designs

Group sequential designs (GSDs) are widely used in confirmatory trials to allow interim monitoring while preserving control of the type I error rate. In the frequentist framework, O'Brien-Fleming-type stopping boundaries dominate practice because they impose highly conservative early stopping while allowing more liberal decisions as information accumulates. Bayesian GSDs, in contrast, are most often implemented using fixed posterior probability thresholds applied uniformly at all analyses. While such designs can be calibrated to control the overall type I error rate, they do not penalise early analyses and can therefore lead to substantially more aggressive early stopping. Such behaviour can risk premature conclusions and inflation of treatment effect estimates, raising concerns for confirmatory trials. We introduce two practically implementable refinements that restore conservative early stopping in Bayesian GSDs. The first introduces a two-phase structure for posterior probability thresholds, applying more stringent criteria in the early phase of the trial and relaxing them later to preserve power. The second replaces posterior probability monitoring at interim looks with predictive probability criteria, which naturally account for uncertainty in future data and therefore suppress premature stopping. Both strategies require only one additional tuning parameter and can be efficiently calibrated. In the HYPRESS setting, both approaches achieve higher power than the conventional Bayesian design while producing alpha-spending profiles closely aligned with O'Brien-Fleming-type behaviour at early looks. These refinements provide a principled and tractable way to align Bayesian GSDs with accepted frequentist practice and regulatory expectations, supporting their robust application in confirmatory trials.

preprint2026arXiv

Tools to help patients and other stakeholders' input into choice of estimand and intercurrent event strategy in randomised trials

Estimands can help to clarify the research questions being addressed in randomised trials. Because the choice of estimand can affect how relevant trial results are to patients and other stakeholders, such as clinicians or policymakers, it is important for them to be involved in these decisions. However, there are barriers to having these conversations. For instance, discussions around how intercurrent events should be addressed in the estimand definition typically involve complex concepts as well as technical language. We three tools to facilitate conversations between researchers and patients and other stakeholders about the choice of estimand and intercurrent event strategy: (i) a video explaining the concept of an estimand and the five different ways that intercurrent events can be incorporated into the estimand definition; (ii) an infographic outlining these five strategies; and (iii) an editable PowerPoint slide which can be completed with trial-specific details to facilitate conversations around choice of estimand for a particular trial. These resources can help to start conversations between the trial team and patients and other stakeholders about the best choice of estimand and intercurrent event strategies for a randomised trial.

preprint2022arXiv

Estimands and their Estimators for Clinical Trials Impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Report from the NISS Ingram Olkin Forum Series on Unplanned Clinical Trial Disruptions

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the conduct of clinical trials globally. Complications may arise from pandemic-related operational challenges such as site closures, travel limitations and interruptions to the supply chain for the investigational product, or from health-related challenges such as COVID-19 infections. Some of these complications lead to unforeseen intercurrent events in the sense that they affect either the interpretation or the existence of the measurements associated with the clinical question of interest. In this article, we demonstrate how the ICH E9(R1) Addendum on estimands and sensitivity analyses provides a rigorous basis to discuss potential pandemic-related trial disruptions and to embed these disruptions in the context of study objectives and design elements. We introduce several hypothetical estimand strategies and review various causal inference and missing data methods, as well as a statistical method that combines unbiased and possibly biased estimators for estimation. To illustrate, we describe the features of a stylized trial, and how it may have been impacted by the pandemic. This stylized trial will then be re-visited by discussing the changes to the estimand and the estimator to account for pandemic disruptions. Finally, we outline considerations for designing future trials in the context of unforeseen disruptions.

preprint2022arXiv

Improving clinical trial interpretation with ACCEPT analyses

Effective decision making from randomised controlled clinical trials relies on robust interpretation of the numerical results. However, the language we use to describe clinical trials can cause confusion both in trial design and in comparing results across trials. ACceptability Curve Estimation using Probability Above Threshold (ACCEPT) aids comparison between trials (even where of different designs) by harmonising reporting of results, acknowledging different interpretations of the results may be valid in different situations, and moving the focus from comparison to a pre-specified value to interpretation of the trial data. ACCEPT can be applied to historical trials or incorporated into statistical analysis plans for future analyses. An online tool enables ACCEPT on up to three trials simultaneously.

preprint2020arXiv

How to design a pre-specified statistical analysis approach to limit p-hacking in clinical trials: the Pre-SPEC framework

Results from clinical trials can be susceptible to bias if investigators choose their analysis approach after seeing trial data, as this can allow them to perform multiple analyses and then choose the method that provides the most favourable result (commonly referred to as 'p-hacking'). Pre-specification of the planned analysis approach is essential to help reduce such bias, as it ensures analytical methods are chosen in advance of seeing the trial data. However, pre-specification is only effective if done in a way that does not allow p-hacking. For example, investigators may pre-specify a certain statistical method such as multiple imputation, but give little detail on how it will be implemented. Because there are many different ways to perform multiple imputation, this approach to pre-specification is ineffective, as it still allows investigators to analyse the data in different ways before deciding on a final approach. In this article we describe a five-point framework (the Pre-SPEC framework) for designing a pre-specified analysis approach that does not allow p-hacking. This framework is intended to be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement and other similar guidelines to help investigators design the statistical analysis strategy for the trial's primary outcome in the trial protocol.