Literature DB >> 33608427

Fundamental Statistical Concepts in Clinical Trials and Diagnostic Testing.

Stephanie L Pugh1, Pedro A Torres-Saavedra2.   

Abstract

This article explores basic statistical concepts of clinical trial design and diagnostic testing, or how one starts with a question, formulates it into a hypothesis on which a clinical trial is then built, and integrates it with statistics and probability, such as determining the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true (type I error) and the probability of failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is false (type II error). There are a variety of tests for different types of data, and the appropriate test must be chosen for which the sample data meet the assumptions. Correcting type I error in the presence of multiple testing is needed to control the error's inflation. Within diagnostic testing, identifying false-positive and false-negative results is critical to understanding the performance of a test. These are used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a test along with the test's negative predictive value and positive predictive value. These quantities, specifically sensitivity and specificity, are used to determine the accuracy of a diagnostic test using receiver-operating-characteristic curves. These concepts are briefly introduced to provide a basic understanding of clinical trial design and analysis, with references to allow the reader to explore various concepts at a more detailed level if desired.
© 2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnostic testing; hypothesis testing; multiplicity; receiver-operating-characteristic curves

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33608427      PMCID: PMC8729862          DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.245654

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  23 in total

Review 1.  Statistical grand rounds: a review of analysis and sample size calculation considerations for Wilcoxon tests.

Authors:  George Divine; H James Norton; Ronald Hunt; Jacqueline Dienemann
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 5.108

2.  The Signed-Rank (Wilcoxon) test in the rapid analysis of biological data.

Authors:  J C Forrester; H K Ury
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1969-02-01       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy accurately stages the regional lymph nodes for T1-T2 oral squamous cell carcinomas: results of a prospective multi-institutional trial.

Authors:  Francisco J Civantos; Robert P Zitsch; David E Schuller; Amit Agrawal; Russell B Smith; Richard Nason; Guy Petruzelli; Christine G Gourin; Richard J Wong; Robert L Ferris; Adel El Naggar; John A Ridge; Randal C Paniello; Kouros Owzar; Linda McCall; Douglas B Chepeha; Wendell G Yarbrough; Jeffrey N Myers
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-02-08       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  D G Altman; J M Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-06-11

5.  What Is a False Negative Sentinel Node Biopsy: Definition, Reasons and Ways to Minimize It?

Authors:  Kamal Kataria; Anurag Srivastava; Darakhshan Qaiser
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 0.656

6.  Sentinel European Node Trial (SENT): 3-year results of sentinel node biopsy in oral cancer.

Authors:  Clare Schilling; Sandro J Stoeckli; Stephan K Haerle; Martina A Broglie; Gerhard F Huber; Jens Ahm Sorensen; Vivi Bakholdt; Annelise Krogdahl; Christian von Buchwald; Anders Bilde; Lars R Sebbesen; Edward Odell; Benjamin Gurney; Michael O'Doherty; Remco de Bree; Elisabeth Bloemena; Geke B Flach; Pedro M Villarreal; Manuel Florentino Fresno Forcelledo; Luis Manuel Junquera Gutiérrez; Julio Alvarez Amézaga; Luis Barbier; Joseba Santamaría-Zuazua; Augusto Moreira; Manuel Jacome; Maurizio Giovanni Vigili; Siavash Rahimi; Girolamo Tartaglione; Georges Lawson; Marie-Cecile Nollevaux; Cesare Grandi; Davide Donner; Emma Bragantini; Didier Dequanter; Philippe Lothaire; Tito Poli; Enrico M Silini; Erinco Sesenna; Giles Dolivet; Romina Mastronicola; Agnes Leroux; Isabel Sassoon; Philip Sloan; Mark McGurk
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Response to Early Treatment Evaluated with 18F-FDG PET and PERCIST 1.0 Predicts Survival in Patients with Ewing Sarcoma Family of Tumors Treated with a Monoclonal Antibody to the Insulinlike Growth Factor 1 Receptor.

Authors:  Joo Hyun O; Brandon S Luber; Jeffrey P Leal; Hao Wang; Vanessa Bolejack; Scott M Schuetze; Lawrence H Schwartz; Lee J Helman; Denise Reinke; Laurence H Baker; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Multiple testing correction over contrasts for brain imaging.

Authors:  Bianca A V Alberton; Thomas E Nichols; Humberto R Gamba; Anderson M Winkler
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  The chi-square test of independence.

Authors:  Mary L McHugh
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.313

10.  Positive and Negative Predictive Value of PET-CT in Skull Base Lesions: Case Series and Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  John Peyton Hines; Brittany E Howard; Joseph M Hoxworth; Devyani Lal
Journal:  J Neurol Surg Rep       Date:  2016-03
View more
  1 in total

1.  Use of machine learning models to predict prognosis of combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema in a Chinese population.

Authors:  Qing Liu; Di Sun; Yu Wang; Pengfei Li; Tianci Jiang; Lingling Dai; Mengjie Duo; Ruhao Wu; Zhe Cheng
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 3.320

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.