Smith D G, Clemens J, Crede W, Harvey M, Gracely E J
Department of Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140.
Am J Med. 1987 Sep;83(3):545-50. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(87)90768-6.
The randomized clinical trial is the preferred research design for evaluating competing diagnostic and therapeutic alternatives, but confidence in the conclusions from a randomized clinical trial depends on the authors' attention to acknowledged methodologic and statistical standards. This survey assessed the level of attention to the problem of multiple comparisons in the analyses of contemporary randomized clinical trials. Of the 67 trials surveyed, 66 (99 percent) performed multiple comparisons with a mean of 30 therapeutic comparisons per trial. When criteria for statistical impairment were applied, 50 trials (75 percent) had the statistical significance of at least one comparison impaired by the problem of multiple comparisons, and 15 (22 percent) had the statistical significance of all comparisons impaired by the problem of multiple comparisons. Although some statistical techniques are available, there still exists a great need for future work to clarify further the problem of multiple comparisons and determine how the impact of this problem can best be minimized in subsequent research.
随机临床试验是评估相互竞争的诊断和治疗方案的首选研究设计,但对随机临床试验结论的信心取决于作者对公认的方法学和统计学标准的关注程度。本次调查评估了当代随机临床试验分析中对多重比较问题的关注程度。在接受调查的67项试验中,66项(99%)进行了多重比较,每项试验平均有30次治疗比较。当应用统计学损害标准时,50项试验(75%)至少有一项比较的统计学显著性因多重比较问题而受到损害,15项(22%)所有比较 的统计学显著性因多重比较问题而受到损害。尽管有一些统计技术可用,但未来仍非常需要进一步阐明多重比较问题,并确定如何在后续研究中最好地将该问题的影响降至最低。