In the statistical analysis of data from a clinical trial, one would expect the same set of data to lead to the same result. However analysts have many choices – what statistical test to use, what type of data to analyze, whether the underlying mathematical assumptions of the tests they use were met, etc. Depending on those decisions, different conclusions about a treatment's efficacy and safety could be supported. Furthermore, today the recommended research practice for analyzing a study is the intention-to-treat approach whereby all subjects the researcher intended to treat are included in the analysis, even if they didn't meet the protocol requirements or left the trial prematurely. This approach can cause a bias, but the alternative that allows researcher to decide who should be dropped and who should remain in an analysis can also introduce bias. The importance of statistical decisions is reflected in an astonishing report claiming that over half of all medical research findings are false. Too few subjects, small differences between treatments, the number of tests preformed and the incorrect interpretation of probabilities were used to support that premise.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Chapter 14 — Analysis Issues
Cited References
Altman D. The scandal of poor medical research. Br Med J 1994:308;283–284.
CONSORT Handbook. 12. Statistical methods. http://www.consort-statement.org/index. aspx?o=1029 Jan 3, 2003.
Djulbegovic B, Iztok H. When should potentially false research findings be considered acceptable? PLoS Med 2007:4;e26.
Goodman S, Greenland S. Why most published research findings are false: problems in the analysis. PLoS Med 2007:4;e168.
Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. Br Med J 1999:319;670–674.
Ioannidis J. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005:2;e124.
Ioannidis J. Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where? PLoS Clin Trials 2006:1;e36.
Johansen H, Gøtzsche P. Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis. JAMA 1999:282;1752–1759.
Pauker S. The clinical interpretation of research. PLoS Med 2005:2;e395.
PLoS Medicine Editors. Minimizing mistakes and embracing uncertainty. PLoS Med 2005:2;e272.
Shaywitz D. Science and shams. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/science/arti-cles/2006/07/27/science_and_shams/ July 27, 2006.
Shrier I. Power, reliability, and heterogeneous results. PLoS Med 2005:2;e386.
Wren J. Truth, probability, and frameworks. PLoS Med 2005:2;e361.
Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, et al. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patient. JAMA 1991:266;93–98.
General References
Assmann S, Pocock S, Enos L, et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000:355;1064–1069.
Cochrane Handbook. 8.4 Intention to treat issues. http://www.cochrane.dk/cochrane/handbook/8_ analysing_and_presenting_results/8.4_intention_to_treat_issues.htm Sep 7, 2004.
Ellenberg JH. Intent-to-treat analysis versus as-treated analysis., Newport Beach, CA: Drug Information Association, Jan 30, 1994.
Ioannidis J. Author's reply. PLoS Med 2005:2;e398.
Johansen H, Gøtzsche P. Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis. JAMA 1999:282;1752–1759.
Science Daily. Is most published research really false?http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache: FEm9qpS9llcJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070227105745.htm + %22Is + most + published + research + really + false%3F%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Feb 27, 2007.
Simon S. Statistical evidence in medical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Analysis Issues – A Lot of Choices. In: It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8906-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8907-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)