Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2019 Jul;30(7):1147-1150.
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019010057. Epub 2019 Jun 17.

Compromising Outcomes

Peter B Imrey  1   2   3
Affiliations
Comment

Compromising Outcomes

Peter B Imrey. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019 Jul.
No abstract available

Keywords: clinical trials; data dredging; multiple testing; p-hacking; publication guidelines; research ethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
At least six strategies are available for error control of multiple simultaneous hypothesis tests within the clinical research literature’s prevalent “frequentist” approach to statistical inference. The group on the left indicates four ways by which multiple comparison concerns in analyses of clinical trial data may be assuaged by reducing the number of formal statistical hypothesis tests that are simultaneously considered: omnibus testing of composite hypotheses, formation and testing of composite outcomes, comparisons of trends or rates of change rather than individual times points in analyses of longitudinal repeated measures outcomes, and formation of outcome hierarchies in which decisions predicated on statistical significance of lower outcomes in the hierarchy require statistical significance of outcomes higher in the hierarchy. The group on the right indicates two ways by which multiple comparison concerns can be managed, without reducing the number of tests, by controlling error rates defined in terms of results of groups of tests rather than individual tests: control of the “familywise error rate” (i.e., of the chance that any member of the group will yield a statistically significant false positive result when all null hypotheses tested are true) and control of the “false discovery rate” (i.e., of the fraction of positive test results resulting from a larger group of tests that are false positives). All of these methods are frequently used, and combinations of them may be required to adequately control false positive inferences from clinical trials. HSD, honestly significant difference.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment on

  • Quantity and Reporting Quality of Kidney Research.
    Chatzimanouil MKT, Wilkens L, Anders HJ. Chatzimanouil MKT, et al. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019 Jan;30(1):13-22. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2018050515. Epub 2018 Dec 13. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019. PMID: 30545982 Free PMC article.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group: CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials 11: 32, 2010 - PubMed
    1. Chatzimanouil MKT, Wilkens L, Anders HJ: Quantity and reporting quality of kidney research. J Am Soc Nephrol 30: 13–22, 2019 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG: Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291: 2457–2465, 2004 - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG: Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 171: 735–740, 2004 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. : Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 3: e3081, 2008 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources