Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8614741

Practical p-value adjustment for optimally selected cutpoints.

S G Hilsenbeck·G M Clark
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper concerns a series of simulations undertaken to examine the effects of two data features--number of cutpoints and true marker prognostic effect size--on three methods of p-value adjustment (asymptotic, P(acor); improved Bonferroni, P(bon); and empirical permutation, P(emp)). H(o) rejection rates for P(emp) and P(bon) are almost indistinguishable from those for an independent validation sample (P(vld)), while those of P(acor) are somewhat conservative, especially when the number of cutpoints is small. Analysis of a new breast cancer prognostic marker, heat shock protein 70, illustrates the methods. These results underscore many of the problems associated with data-derived cutpoints in general, and the need for p-value adjustment.

Explore related subjects

BiasBiomarkersBreast NeoplasmsData Interpretation, StatisticalEffect Modifier, EpidemiologicFemaleHSP70 Heat-Shock ProteinsHumansPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsReproducibility of ResultsSurvival AnalysisJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S G Hilsenbeck, G M Clark. 1996-01-15. Practical p-value adjustment for optimally selected cutpoints.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19960115)15%3A1%3C103%3A%3Aaid-sim156%3E3.0.co%3B2-y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed1999

Influence of data display formats on physician investigators' decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of the method of data display on physician investigators' decisions to stop hypothetical clinical trials for an unplanned statistical analysis. DESIGN: Prospective, mixed model design with variables between subjects and within subjects (repeated measures). SETTING: Comprehensive cancer centre. PARTICIPANTS: 34 physicians, stratified by academic rank, who were conducting clinical trials. INTERVENTIONS: PARTICIPANTS were shown tables, pie charts, bar graphs, and icon displays containing hypothetical data from a clinical trial and were asked to decide whether to continue the trial or stop for an unplanned statistical analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of accurate decisions with each type of display. RESULTS: Accuracy of decisions was affected by the type of data display and positive or negative framing of the data. More correct decisions were made with icon displays than with tables, pie charts, and bar graphs (82% v 68%, 56%, and 43%, respectively; P=0.03) and when data were negatively framed rather than positively framed in tables (93% v 47%; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical investigators' decisions can be affected by factors unrelated to the actual data. In the design of clinical trials information systems, careful consideration should be given to the method by which data are framed and displayed in order to reduce the impact of these extraneous factors.

Bias↗