Advertisement

Clinical Trials: Superiority-Testing

One of the flaws of modern statistics is that it can produce statistically significant results even if treatment effects are very small. E.g., a sub-analysis of the SOLVD study1 found symptoms of angina pectoris in 85.3% of the patients on enalapril and in 82.5% of the patients on placebo, difference statistically significant at p<0.01. In a situation like this one has to question about the clinical relevance of the small difference. Another problem of clinical trials is that the statistics is increasingly complex, and that clinicians are at a loss to understand it. This is not, necessarily, a criticism of well-trained and hard-working doctors, but it does have a very dark side. Studies are, generally, accepted if the magic p-values are <0.05, and the disappointment about the small benefit to individual patients comes later. The problem is that a p-value of 0.05 means that the power of finding a true positive effect is only 50%, and, more important, the chance of not finding it is equally 50%. Such a result is hardly acceptable for reliable testing. The objectives of the current study were (1) to give some examples of studies that have been published as unequivocally positive studies, although the treatment effects were substantially smaller than they were expected to be, (2) to introduce superiority-testing as a novel statistical approach avoiding the risk of statistically significant but clinically irrelevant results. Superiority-testing defines a priori in the protocol clinically relevant boundaries of superiority of the new treatment. If the 95% confidence interval of the study result is entirely within the boundary, then superiority is accepted, and we do not have to worry about the p-values anymore.

Keywords

Stereotactic Radiosurgery Absolute Risk Reduction Positive Study Tumour Cell Vaccine Clinical Superiority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yusuf S, Pepine CJ, Garces C, et al. Effect of enalapril on myocardial infarction and angina pectoris in patients with low ejection fraction. Lancet 1992; 340: 1173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collaborative Group of Primary Prevention Project. Low dose aspirin and vitamin E in people at cardiovascular risk: a randomised trial in general practice. Lancet 2001; 357: 89–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Staedke SG, Kanga MR, Dorsey G, et al. Amiodaquine, sulfadioxone/pyrimethamine and combination therapy for treatment of falciparum malaria in Kampala, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 358: 368–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, et al, on behalf of the PROSPER study group. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 1623–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wallenstein L, Wilcox RG, Weaver WD, et al, for the ESTEEM investigators. Oral ximelagatran for secondary prophylaxis after myocardial infarction. Lancet 2003; 362; 789–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jochan D, Richter A, Hofmann L, et al. Adjuvant autologous renal tumour cell vaccine and risk of tumor progression in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Lancet 2004; 362: 594–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andrews DW, Scott CB, Speranto PW, et al. Whole brain irradiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with 1–3 brain metastases. Lancet 2004; 363: 1665–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferreira-Gonzalea I, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, et al. Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2007; 334: 786–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horng S, Grudy C. Misunderstanding of clinical research. Ethics and Human Research 2003; 25: 11–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fetting JH, Siminoff CA, Piantadosi S et al. effects of patients' expectations of benefit with standard breast cancer adjuvant therapy on participants in clinical trials. J Oncol 1990; 8: 1476–82.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Anonymous. Patients' demands for prescriptions in primary care. Br Med J 1995; 310: 1084–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Personalised recommendations