↓ Skip to main content

Correcting for multiple-testing in multi-arm trials: is it necessary and is it done?

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Correcting for multiple-testing in multi-arm trials: is it necessary and is it done?
Published in
Trials, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-364
Pubmed ID
Authors

James M S Wason, Lynne Stecher, Adrian P Mander

Abstract

Multi-arm trials enable the evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. They provide a way of substantially increasing the efficiency of the clinical development process. However, since multi-arm trials test multiple hypotheses, some regulators require that a statistical correction be made to control the chance of making a type-1 error (false-positive). Several conflicting viewpoints are expressed in the literature regarding the circumstances in which a multiple-testing correction should be used. In this article we discuss these conflicting viewpoints and review the frequency with which correction methods are currently used in practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 127 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 18%
Student > Master 14 11%
Other 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 31%
Mathematics 15 11%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 30 23%