Skip to main content

Analysis Issues – A Lot of Choices

  • Chapter
It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't
  • 1647 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman S, Greenland S. Why most published research findings are false: problems in the analysis. PLoS Med 2007:4;e168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis J. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005:2;e124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis J. Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where? PLoS Clin Trials 2006:1;e36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen H, Gøtzsche P. Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis. JAMA 1999:282;1752–1759.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pauker S. The clinical interpretation of research. PLoS Med 2005:2;e395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • PLoS Medicine Editors. Minimizing mistakes and embracing uncertainty. PLoS Med 2005:2;e272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wren J. Truth, probability, and frameworks. PLoS Med 2005:2;e361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, et al. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patient. JAMA 1991:266;93–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

General References

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics