Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Correspondence

The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance – a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials

Authors: Janus Christian Jakobsen, Christian Gluud, Per Winkel, Theis Lange, Jørn Wetterslev

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

If the proposed five-step procedure is followed, this may increase the validity of assessments of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Jakobsen JC, Gluud C: The necessity of randomized clinical trials. Br J Med Res. 2013, 3 (4): 1453-1468.CrossRef
2.
3.
Fisher R: Statistical methods and scientific induction. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1955, 17 (1): 69-78.
4.
Gigerenzer G: Mindless statistics. J Socio Econ. 2004, 33 (5): 587-606. 10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033.CrossRef
5.
Hald A: A history of mathematical statistics from 1750 to 1930. 1998, New York: John Wiley & Sons
6.
Goodman S: A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions. Semin Hematol. 2008, 45: 135-140. 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.04.003.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Oliveri RS, Gluud C, Wille-Jørgensen PA: Hospital doctors' self-rated skills in and use of evidence-based medicine - a questionnaire survey. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004, 10 (2): 219-226. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2003.00477.x.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, Lane M, Glasziou P, Zhou Q, Heels-Ansdell D, Walter SD, Guyatt GH, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, Murad MH, Abu Elnour NO, Lampropulos JF, Sood A, Mullan RJ, Erwin PJ, Bankhead CR, Perera R, Ruiz Culebro C, You JJ, Mulla SM, Kaur J, Nerenberg KA, Schunemann H, Cook DJ, Lutz K, Ribic CM, Vale N, Malaga G, Akl EA, et al: Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2010, 303: 1180-1187. 10.1001/jama.2010.310.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Ioannidis JP, Thabane L, Gluud LL, Als-Nielsen B, Gluud C: Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?. Int J Epidemiol. 2009, 38 (1): 276-286. 10.1093/ije/dyn179.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Garattini S, Bertele V: Non-inferiority trials are unethical because they disregard patients' interests. Lancet. 2007, 370 (9602): 1875-1877. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61604-3.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Sterne JA: Teaching hypothesis tests–time for significant change?. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 985-999. 10.1002/sim.1129.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Ranstam J: Why the P-value culture is bad and confidence intervals a better alternative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012, 20: 805-808. 10.1016/j.joca.2012.04.001.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Gargon E: The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. Trials. 2011, 12 (Suppl 1): A70-10.1186/1745-6215-12-S1-A70.CrossRefPubMedCentral
15.
Altman DG, Bland JM: How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value. BMJ. 2011, 343: d2090-10.1136/bmj.d2090.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Chow S-C, Shao J, Wang H: Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research, Second Edition. 2008, Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman and Hall/CRC
17.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Int Med. 2010, 152 (11): 726-732. 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Scales DC, Rubenfeld GD: Estimating sample size in critical care clinical trials. J Crit Care. 2005, 20 (1): 6-11. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.02.002.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Myles DJS, Keith RA, Jonathan P: Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation (Statistics in Practice). 2004, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons
20.
Roloff V, Higgins JP, Sutton AJ: Planning future studies based on the conditional power of a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2013, 32 (1): 11-24. 10.1002/sim.5524.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Goodman SN: Introduction to Bayesian methods I: measuring the strength of evidence. Clin Trials. 2005, 2: 282-378. 10.1191/1740774505cn098oa.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Goodman SN: Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Ann Int Med. 1999, 130 (12): 1005-1013. 10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00019.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Pogue JM, Yusuf S: Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis. Control Clin Trials. 1997, 18 (6): 580-593. 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00051-2.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Higgins JP, Whitehead A: Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1996, 15 (24): 2733-2749. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19961230)15:24<2733::AID-SIM562>3.0.CO;2-0.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Fayers PM, Cuschieri A, Fielding J, Craven J, Uscinska B, Freedman LS: Sample size calculation for clinical trials: the impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer. 2000, 82 (1): 213-219. 10.1054/bjoc.1999.0902.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Thorlund K, Imberger G, Walsh M, Chu R, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Devereaux PJ, Thabane L: The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis-a simulation study. PLoS One. 2011, 6: e25491-10.1371/journal.pone.0025491.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Pereira TV, Horwitz RI, Ioannidis JP: Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. JAMA. 2012, 308: 1676-1684. 10.1001/jama.2012.13444.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mehta CR, Pocock SJ: Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples. Stat Med. 2011, 30 (28): 3267-3284. 10.1002/sim.4102.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Jennison C, Turnbull BW: Efficient group sequential designs when there are several effect sizes under consideration. Stat Med. 2005, 25: 917-932.CrossRef
30.
O'Hagan A, Stevens JW, Campbell MJ: Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm Stat. 2005, 4 (3): 187-201. 10.1002/pst.175.CrossRef
31.
Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JP: The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews. PLoS One. 2013, 8 (3): e59202-10.1371/journal.pone.0059202.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Sully BG, Julious SA, Nicholl J: A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: a review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2013, 14: 166-10.1186/1745-6215-14-166.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Levin GP, Emerson SC, Emerson SS: Adaptive clinical trial designs with pre-specified rules for modifying the sample size: understanding efficient types of adaptation. Stat Med. 2012, 32 (8): 1259-1275.CrossRefPubMed
34.
DeMets DL, Lan KK: Interim analysis: the alpha spending function approach. Stat Med. 1994, 13 (13–14): 1341-1356.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Bassler D, Montori VM, Briel M, Glasziou P, Walter SD, Ramsay T, Guyatt G: Reflections on meta-analyses involving trials stopped early for benefit: is there a problem and if so, what is it?. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013, 22 (2): 159-168. 10.1177/0962280211432211.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Lindley DV: A statistical paradox. Biometrika. 1957, 44 (1/2): 187-192. 10.2307/2333251.CrossRef
37.
Guyatt GH, Briel M, Glasziou P, Bassler D, Montori VM: Problems of stopping trials early. BMJ. 2012, 344: e3863-10.1136/bmj.e3863.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Wald A: Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. Ann Math Stat. 1945, 16: 117-186. 10.1214/aoms/1177731118.CrossRef
39.
Zhang J, Quan H, Ng J, Stepanavage ME: Some statistical methods for multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1997, 18: 204-221. 10.1016/S0197-2456(96)00129-8.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Imberger G, Vejlby AD, Hansen SB, Møller AM, Wetterslev J: Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. PLoS One. 2011, 6: e28422-10.1371/journal.pone.0028422.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
42.
Jennison C, Turnbull BW: Repeated confidence intervals for group sequential clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1984, 5 (1): 33-45. 10.1016/0197-2456(84)90148-X.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Todd S, Whitehead J, Facey KM: Point and interval estimation following a sequential clinical trial. Biometrika. 1996, 83 (2): 453-461. 10.1093/biomet/83.2.453.CrossRef
44.
Jennison C, Turnbull BW: Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials (Chapman & Hall/CRC Interdisciplinary Statistics). 1999, : Chapman and Hall/CRC
45.
Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C: User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA). 2011, Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, 1-115. Available from http://​www.​ctu.​dk/​tsa
46.
Equator Network: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. Available at: http://​www.​equator-network.​org/​ 2014
47.
Yang Q, Cui J, Chazaro I, Cupples LA, Demissie S: Power and type I error rate of false discovery rate approaches in genome-wide association studies. BMC Genet. 2005, 6 (Suppl 1): S134-10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S134.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall P: Multiple Comparisons Using R. 2010, Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman and Hall/CRCCrossRef
49.
Altman DG, Bland JM: How to obtain the P value from a confidence interval. BMJ. 2011, 343: d2304-10.1136/bmj.d2304.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Abdi H: Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. The Bonferonni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. In N.J. Salkind (Ed.) page 103–107. 2007, Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage
51.
Holm S: A simple sequentially rejective multipletestprocedure. Scand J Statist. 1979, 6: 65-70.
52.
Dmitrienko A, Ajit C, Tamhane AC, Bretz F: Multiple testing problems in pharmaceutical statistics (Chapman & Hall/CRC Biostatistics Series). 2009, Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman and Hall/CRCCrossRef
53.
Tu YH, Cheng B, Cheung YK: A note on confidence bounds after fixed-sequence multiple tests. J Stat Plan Inference. 2012, 142 (11): 2993-2998. 10.1016/j.jspi.2012.05.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Wiens BL, Dmitrienko A: The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. J Biopharm Stat. 2005, 15 (6): 929-942. 10.1080/10543400500265660.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Korn EL, Li MC, McShane LM, Simon R: An investigation of two multivariate permutation methods for controlling the false discovery proportion. Stat Med. 2007, 26 (24): 4428-4440. 10.1002/sim.2865.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Westfall PH, Young S: Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for p-Value Adjustment (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics). 1993, New York: Wiley-Interscience
57.
Yu J, Hutson AD, Siddiqui AH, Kedron MA: Group sequential control of overall toxicity incidents in clinical trials - non-Bayesian and Bayesian approaches. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012, Epub ahead of print
58.
Thall PF, Simon RM, Shen Y: Approximate Bayesian evaluation of multiple treatment effects. Biometrics. 2000, 56: 213-219. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00213.x.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Zhang X, Cutter G: Bayesian interim analysis in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008, 29: 751-755. 10.1016/j.cct.2008.05.007.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Jakobsen JC, Lindschou Hansen J, Storebø OJ, Simonsen E, Gluud C: The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' in patients with major depressive disorder. PLoS One. 2011, 6 (8): e22890-10.1371/journal.pone.0022890.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Knorr U, Vinberg M, Kessing LV, Wetterslev J: Salivary cortisol in depressed patients versus control persons: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinol. 2010, 35: 1275-1286. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.04.001.CrossRef
62.
Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, Whitney E, Shapiro DR, Beere PA, Langendorfer A, Stein EA, Kruyer W, Gotto AM: Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study. JAMA. 1998, 279 (20): 1615-1622. 10.1001/jama.279.20.1615.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Stovring H, Harmsen CG, Wisloff T, Jarbol DE, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB, Kristiansen IS: A competing risk approach for the European Heart SCORE model based on cause-specific and all-cause mortality. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012, 20 (5): 827-836.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Prasad V, Vandross A: Cardiovascular primary prevention: how high should we set the bar?. Arch Int Med. 2012, 172: 656-659. 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.812.CrossRef
65.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schunemann HJ: GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings Tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64 (4): 383-394. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Alonso-Coello P, Atkins D, Kunz R, Montori V, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Dahm P, Akl EA, Meerpohl J, Vist G, Berliner E, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ: GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013, 66 (2): 151-157. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.006.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Jüni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Dieppe PA, Egger M: Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet. 2004, 364 (9450): 2021-2029. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17514-4.CrossRefPubMed
68.
69.
Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, Xie F, Murad MH, Montori VM, Guyatt GH: Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010, 8: 116-10.1186/1477-7525-8-116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Halvorsen PA, Kristiansen IS: Decisions on drug therapies by numbers needed to treat: a randomized trial. Arch Int Med. 2005, 165: 1140-1146. 10.1001/archinte.165.10.1140.CrossRef
71.
Chalmers I, Milne I, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J, Morabia A, Tait G, Dukan E: The James Lind Library: explaining and illustrating the evolution of fair tests of medical treatments. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2008, 38 (3): 259-264.PubMed
72.
The Library and Information Services Department, The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh: James Lind Library. Available online at: http://​www.​jameslindlibrary​.​org/​ 2003
73.
74.
Garthwaite P, Kadane JB, O'Hagan A: Statistical Methods for Eliciting Probability Distributions. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012, 100 (470):
75.
Ioannidis J: Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005, 294 (2): 218-228. 10.1001/jama.294.2.218.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C: Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61 (1): 64-75. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Higgins JP, Whitehead A, Simmonds M: Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2011, 30 (9): 903-921. 10.1002/sim.4088.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Keus F, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, van Laarhoven CJ: Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010, 10: 90-10.1186/1471-2288-10-90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
79.
80.
Higgins JP, Spiegelhalter DJ: Being sceptical about meta-analyses: a Bayesian perspective on magnesium trials in myocardial infarction. Int J Epidemiol. 2002, 31 (1): 96-104. 10.1093/ije/31.1.96.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Korn EL, Freidlin B: The likelihood as statistical evidence in multiple comparisons in clinical trials: no free lunch. Biom J. 2006, 48 (3): 346-355. 10.1002/bimj.200510216.CrossRefPubMed
82.
Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N: The BUGS project: Evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med. 2009, 28 (25): 3049-3067. 10.1002/sim.3680.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Gaziano JM, Sesso HD, Christen WG, Bubes V, Smith JP, MacFadyen J, Schvartz M, Manson JE, Glynn RJ, Buring JE: Multivitamins in the prevention of cancer in men: the Physicians' Health Study II. JAMA. 2012, 308 (18): 1871-1880. 10.1001/jama.2012.14641.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
84.
Christen WG, Gaziano JM, Hennekens CH: Design of Physicians' Health Study II–a randomized trial of beta-carotene. Ann Epidemiol. 2000, 10 (2): 125-134. 10.1016/S1047-2797(99)00042-3.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C: Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012, 3: CD007176
86.
Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Simonetti RG, Gluud C: Antioxidant supplements for preventing gastrointestinal cancers. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 3: CD004183-
87.
Cortés-Jofré M, Rueda JR, Corsini-Muñoz G, Fonseca-Cortés C, Caraballoso M, Bonfill Cosp X: Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 10: CD002141-
88.
Shakur H, Roberts I, Bautista R, Caballero J, Coats T, Dewan Y, El-Sayed H, Gogichaishvili T, Gupta S, Herrera J, Hunt B, Iribhogbe P, Izurieta M, Khamis H, Komolafe E, Marrero MA, Mejia-Mantilla J, Miranda J, Morales C, Olaomi O, Olldashi F, Perel P, Peto R, Ramana PV, Ravi RR, Yutthakasemsunt S: Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2010, 376 (9734): 23-32.CrossRefPubMed
89.
Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, Tenhunen J, Klemenzson G, Aneman A, Madsen KR, Moller MH, Elkjaer JM, Poulsen LM, Bendtsen A, Winding R, Steensen M, Berezowicz P, Soe-Jensen P, Bestle M, Strand K, Wiis J, White JO, Thornberg KJ, Quist L, Nielsen J, Andersen LH, Holst LB, Thormar K, Kjaeldgaard AL, Fabritius ML, Mondrup F, Pott FC, Moller T, et al: Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. N Eng J Med. 2012, 367 (2): 124-134. 10.1056/NEJMoa1204242.CrossRef
90.
Perner A, Haase N, Wetterslev J, Aneman A, Tenhunen J, Guttormsen AB, Klemenzson G, Pott F, Bodker KD, Badstolokken PM, Bendtsen A, Soe-Jensen P, Tousi H, Bestle M, Pawlowicz M, Winding R, Bulow HH, Kancir C, Steensen M, Nielsen J, Fogh B, Madsen KR, Larsen NH, Carlsson M, Wiis J, Petersen JA, Iversen S, Schoidt O, Leivdal S, Berezowicz P, et al: Comparing the effect of hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 with balanced crystalloid solution on mortality and kidney failure in patients with severe sepsis (6S--Scandinavian Starch for Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock trial): study protocol, design and rationale for a double-blinded, randomised clinical trial. Trials. 2011, 12 (1): 24-10.1186/1745-6215-12-24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
91.
Haase N, Perner A, Hennings LI, Siegemund M, Lauridsen B, Wetterslev M, Wetterslev J: Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin in patients with sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BMJ. 2013, 346: f839-10.1136/bmj.f839.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance – a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials
Authors
Janus Christian Jakobsen
Christian Gluud
Per Winkel
Theis Lange
Jørn Wetterslev
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-34

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research article

The statistical interpretation of pilot trials: should significance thresholds be reconsidered?

Research article

The effect of an internet option and single-sided printing format to increase the response rate to a population-based study: a randomized controlled trial

Research article

Easier said than done!: methodological challenges with conducting maternal death review research in Malawi

Research article

A two-stage Bayesian method for estimating accuracy and disease prevalence for two dependent dichotomous screening tests when the status of individuals who are negative on both tests is unverified

Research article

Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-43 short form

Technical advance

Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies