Abstract
The topic of subset analysis is complex, yet it has evoked simplistic solutions and strong feelings as a results of these simplistic solutions. There are some clinical investigators who ransack their data to find a subset of patients in which their new therapy looks effective. They report the findings in apparent ignorance of the problems of multiple comparisons, and their statistically significant finding looks good to the mass of statistically unsophisticated readers. Many of us react strongly to this, and the phrase “subset analysis” itself acquires a connotation of deception and sophistry. We hear individuals say that it is all right to look at subset results, but don’t believe them. We hear that subset analyses can only generate hypotheses to be tested in other clinical trials. Does this mean that one must entirely ignore subset results regardless of how strong they are? Is it practical to design future studies and treat future patients on this basis? Does this also hold for clinical trials of cardiovascular disease or cancer prevention which may involve enormous numbers of patients and cost tens of millions of dollars? Is this sensible statistically?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cornfield J (1976) Recent methodological contributions to clinical trials. Am J Epidemiol 104: 408–421
Donner A (1982) A Bayesian approach to the interpretation of subgroup results in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 35: 429–435
Efron B, Morris C (1973) Stein’s estimation rule and its competitors—an empirical Bayes approach. J Am Stat Assoc 68: 117–130
Furberg CD, Byington RP (1983) What do subgroup analyses reveal about differential response to beta-blocker therapy? Circulation 67 (suppl I): 198–1101
Furberg CD, Hawkins CM, Lichstein E (1983) Effect of propranolol in postinfarction patients with mechanical or electrical complications. Circulation 69: 761–765
Gail M, Simon R (1985) Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets. Biometrics 41: 361–372
Laird NM (1978) Nonparametric maximum likelihood estimation of a mixing distribution. J Am Statist Assn 73: 805–811
Peto R (1982) Statistical aspects of cancer trials. In: Hainan KE (ed) Treatment of cancer. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 867–871
Simon R (1982) Patient subsets and variation in therapeutic efficacy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 14: 473–482
Simon R (1986) Confidence intervals for reporting results of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 105:429–435
Thomas DC, Siemiatycki J, Dewar R, Robins J, Goldberg M, Armstrong BG (1985) The problem of multiple inference in studies designed to generate hypotheses. Am J Epidemiol 122: 1080–1095
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Simon, R. (1988). Statistical Tools for Subset Analysis in Clinical Trials. In: Scheurlen, H., Kay, R., Baum, M. (eds) Cancer Clinical Trials. Recent Results in Cancer Research, vol 111. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83419-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83419-6_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-83421-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-83419-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive