Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32790026›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical statistics2021

Controlling type I error rates in multi-arm clinical trials: A case for the false discovery rate.

James M S Wason, David S Robertson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical statistics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Intervention Tournaments: An Overview of Concept, Design, and Implementation.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James M S WasonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4691-126X
David S RobertsonMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/14Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/15Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/6Medical Research Council MR/N028171/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-arm trials are an efficient way of simultaneously testing several experimental treatments against a shared control group. As well as reducing the sample size required compared to running each trial separately, they have important administrative and logistical advantages. There has been debate over whether multi-arm trials should correct for the fact that multiple null hypotheses are tested within the same experiment. Previous opinions have ranged from no correction is required, to a stringent correction (controlling the probability of making at least one type I error) being needed, with regulators arguing the latter for confirmatory settings. In this article, we propose that controlling the false-discovery rate (FDR) is a suitable compromise, with an appealing interpretation in multi-arm clinical trials. We investigate the properties of the different correction methods in terms of the positive and negative predictive value (respectively how confident we are that a recommended treatment is effective and that a non-recommended treatment is ineffective). The number of arms and proportion of treatments that are truly effective is varied. Controlling the FDR provides good properties. It retains the high positive predictive value of FWER correction in situations where a low proportion of treatments is effective. It also has a good negative predictive value in situations where a high proportion of treatments is effective. In a multi-arm trial testing distinct treatment arms, we recommend that sponsors and trialists consider use of the FDR.

Indexed as

Research DesignControl GroupsData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansProbabilitySample Sizeerror ratefalse discovery ratefamily-wise error ratemulti-arm trials

Identifiers

PMID32790026
PMCPMC7612170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.