Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35012627›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

Multiple secondary outcome analyses: precise interpretation is important.

Richard A Parker, Christopher J Weir

Registry-linked trialAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05844566 (Implementation of a Decision Support System and Its Effect on Early Optimisation of Lipid-Lowering Therapies in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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.

NCT05844566 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Implementation of a Decision Support System and Its Effect on Early Optimisation of Lipid-Lowering Therapies in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorImperial College LondonRan2023 to 2024Enrolled1,139ConditionsAcute Coronary Syndrome, Myocardial InfarctionArmsDecision Support System (DSS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Multisite Randomized Trial of Inpatient Palliative Care Intervention for Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. When to Adjust for Multiple Testing: A Unifying Guiding Principle.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Benefits of a Digital Exercise Intervention for Older Adults: Findings From the Fittle Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  20. Observational
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.

Richard A ParkerEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. Richard.Parker@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2658-5022
Christopher J WeirEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analysis of multiple secondary outcomes in a clinical trial leads to an increased probability of at least one false significant result among all secondary outcomes studied. In this paper, we question the notion that that if no multiplicity adjustment has been applied to multiple secondary outcome analyses in a clinical trial, then they must necessarily be regarded as exploratory. Instead, we argue that if individual secondary outcome results are interpreted carefully and precisely, there is no need to downgrade our interpretation to exploratory. This is because the probability of a false significant result for each comparison, the per-comparison wise error rate, does not increase with multiple testing. Strong effects on secondary outcomes should always be taken seriously and must not be dismissed purely on the basis of multiplicity concerns.

Indexed as

Research DesignClinical Trials as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansProbabilityMultiple testing, Secondary outcomes, Family-wise error rate, Per-comparison wise error rate, Type-I error, Multiplicity

Identifiers

PMID35012627
PMCPMC8744058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.