Controlling the Risk of False Positive Clinical Trials

Ton J. Cleophas, Aeilko H. Zwinderman and Toine F. Cleophas
Additional contact information
Ton J. Cleophas: European Interuniversity College of Pharmaceutical Medicine Lyon
Aeilko H. Zwinderman: Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Department Biostatistics and Epidemiology
Toine F. Cleophas: Technical University

Chapter Chapter 8 in Statistics Applied to Clinical Trials, 2006, pp 97-101 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract Statistical hypothesis testing is much like gambling. If, with gambling once, your chance of a prize is 5%, then, with gambling 20 times, this chance will be close to 40%. The same is true with statistical testing of clinical trials. If, with one statistical test, your chance of a significant result is 5%, then after 20 tests, it will increase to 40%. This result is, however, not based on a true treatment effect, but, rather, on the play of chance. In current clinical trials, instead of a single efficacy-variable of one treatment, multiple efficacy-variables of more than one treatment are increasingly assessed. E.g., in 16 randomized controlled trials with positive results, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2004 (Table 1), the numbers of primary efficacy-variables varied from 4 to 13. This phenomenon introduces the statistical problem of multiple comparisons and multiple testing, which increases the risk of false positive results, otherwise called type I errors. There is no consensus within the statistical community on how to cope with this problem. Also, the issue has not been studied thoroughly for every type of variable. Clinical trials rarely adjust their data for multiple comparisons. E.g., none of the above BMJ papers did. In the previous chapter we already discussed tools which can help to control the risk of false positive results. The current chapter briefly summarizes the main methods for control in order to further emphasize the importance of this issue, and it gives additional examples.

Keywords: False Positive Result; British Medical Journal; Disease Activity Score; Honestly Significant Difference; Statistical Hypothesis Testing (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-1-4020-4650-6_8

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9781402046506

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4650-6_8

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Springer Books from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().