Literature DB >> 20589856

Challenges to multiple testing in clinical trials.

H M James Hung1, Sue-Jane Wang.   

Abstract

Multiple testing problems are complex in evaluating statistical evidence in pivotal clinical trials for regulatory applications. However, a common practice is to employ a general and rather simple multiple comparison procedure to handle the problems. Applying multiple comparison adjustments is to ensure proper control of type I error rates. However, in many practices, the emphasis of the type I error rate control often leads to a choice of a statistically valid multiple test procedure but the common sense is overlooked. The challenges begin with confusions in defining a relevant family of hypotheses for which the type I error rates need to be properly controlled. Multiple testing problems are in a wide variety, ranging from testing multiple doses and endpoints jointly, composite endpoint, non-inferiority and superiority, to studying time of onset of a treatment effect, and searching for minimum effective dose or a patient subgroup in which the treatment effect lies. To select a valid and sensible multiple test procedure, the first step should be to tailor the selection to the study questions and to the ultimate clinical decision tree. Then evaluation of statistical power performance should come in to play in the next step to fine tune the selected procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20589856     DOI: 10.1002/bimj.200900206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  6 in total

1.  Graphical approaches for multiple comparison procedures using weighted Bonferroni, Simes, or parametric tests.

Authors:  Frank Bretz; Martin Posch; Ekkehard Glimm; Florian Klinglmueller; Willi Maurer; Kornelius Rohmeyer
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 2.207

Review 2.  Design, data monitoring, and analysis of clinical trials with co-primary endpoints: A review.

Authors:  Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Scott R Evans; Koko Asakura
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 1.051

3.  Objective sleep structure and cardiovascular risk factors in the general population: the HypnoLaus Study.

Authors:  José Haba-Rubio; Pedro Marques-Vidal; Daniela Andries; Nadia Tobback; Martin Preisig; Peter Vollenweider; Gérard Waeber; Gianina Luca; Mehdi Tafti; Raphaël Heinzer
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2015-03-01       Impact factor: 5.849

4.  Assessing the impact of safety monitoring on the efficacy analysis in large Phase III group sequential trials with non-trivial safety event rate.

Authors:  Yanqiu Weng; Yuko Y Palesch; Stacia M DeSantis; Wenle Zhao
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 1.051

5.  A simple and flexible graphical approach for adaptive group-sequential clinical trials.

Authors:  Toshifumi Sugitani; Frank Bretz; Willi Maurer
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 1.051

6.  A comparison of random-field-theory and false-discovery-rate inference results in the analysis of registered one-dimensional biomechanical datasets.

Authors:  Hanaa Naouma; Todd C Pataky
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 2.984

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.