The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance – a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Assessment of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials deserves more rigour in order to become more valid, and the proposed five-step procedure may increase the validity of assessments of interventions in randomising clinical trials.Abstract:
Thresholds for statistical significance are insufficiently demonstrated by 95% confidence intervals or P-values when assessing results from randomised clinical trials. First, a P-value only shows the probability of getting a result assuming that the null hypothesis is true and does not reflect the probability of getting a result assuming an alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis is true. Second, a confidence interval or a P-value showing significance may be caused by multiplicity. Third, statistical significance does not necessarily result in clinical significance. Therefore, assessment of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials deserves more rigour in order to become more valid. Several methodologies for assessing the statistical and clinical significance of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials were considered. Balancing simplicity and comprehensiveness, a simple five-step procedure was developed. For a more valid assessment of results from a randomised clinical trial we propose the following five-steps: (1) report the confidence intervals and the exact P-values; (2) report Bayes factor for the primary outcome, being the ratio of the probability that a given trial result is compatible with a ‘null’ effect (corresponding to the P-value) divided by the probability that the trial result is compatible with the intervention effect hypothesised in the sample size calculation; (3) adjust the confidence intervals and the statistical significance threshold if the trial is stopped early or if interim analyses have been conducted; (4) adjust the confidence intervals and the P-values for multiplicity due to number of outcome comparisons; and (5) assess clinical significance of the trial results. If the proposed five-step procedure is followed, this may increase the validity of assessments of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials – a practical guide with flowcharts
TL;DR: This work considers how to optimise the handling of missing data during the planning stage of a randomised clinical trial and recommends analytical approaches which may prevent bias caused by unavoidable missing data.
Journal ArticleDOI
Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis
TL;DR: Trial Sequential Analysis represents analysis of meta-analytic data, with transparent assumptions, and better control of type I and type II errors than the traditional meta-analysis using naïve unadjusted confidence intervals.
Journal ArticleDOI
Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods
TL;DR: An eight-step procedure for better validation of meta-analytic results in systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials is proposed, which will increase the validity of assessments of intervention effects in systematic Reviews of Randomised Clinical trials.
Journal ArticleDOI
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
Janus Christian Jakobsen,Kiran Kumar Katakam,Anne Schou,Signe Gade Hellmuth,Sandra Elkjær Stallknecht,Katja Biering Leth-Møller,Maria Iversen,Marianne Bjørnø Banke,Iggiannguaq Juhl Petersen,Sarah Louise Klingenberg,Jesper Krogh,Sebastian Elgaard Ebert,Anne Timm,Jane Lindschou,Christian Gluud +14 more
TL;DR: SSRIs might have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but all trials were at high risk of bias and the clinical significance seems questionable, and the potential small beneficial effects seem to be outweighed by harmful effects.
Journal ArticleDOI
Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C
Janus Christian Jakobsen,Emil Eik Nielsen,Joshua Feinberg,Kiran Kumar Katakam,Kristina Fobian,Goran Hauser,Goran Poropat,Snezana Djurisic,Karl Heinz Weiss,M. Bjelakovic,Goran Bjelakovic,Sarah Louise Klingenberg,Jianping Liu,Dimitrinka Nikolova,Ronald L. Koretz,Christian Gluud +15 more
TL;DR: The authors could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on the primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality, and the overall quality of the evidence was low.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure
TL;DR: In this paper, a simple and widely accepted multiple test procedure of the sequentially rejective type is presented, i.e. hypotheses are rejected one at a time until no further rejections can be done.
Journal ArticleDOI
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
TL;DR: The Consort 2010 Statement as discussed by the authors has been used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials and has been updated by Schulz et al. in 2010, based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Elie A. Akl,Regina Kunz,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Jan Brozek,Susan L Norris,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Paul Glasziou,Hans deBeer,Roman Jaeschke,David Rind,Joerg J Meerpohl,Philipp Dahm,Holger J. Schünemann +14 more
TL;DR: The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes, and provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect.
Journal ArticleDOI
Primary Prevention of Acute Coronary Events With Lovastatin in Men and Women With Average Cholesterol Levels: Results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS
John R. Downs,Michael Clearfield,Stephen E. Weis,Edwin J. Whitney,Deborah R. Shapiro,Polly A. Beere,Alexandra Langendorfer,Evan A. Stein,William Kruyer,Antonio M. Gotto +9 more
TL;DR: Lovastatin reduces the risk for the first acute major coronary event in men and women with average TC and LDL-C levels and below-average HDL- C levels and supports the inclusion of HDL-C in risk-factor assessment and the need for reassessment of the National Cholesterol Program guidelines.