Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9369135

When is a negative study not negative?

C Scott·T Wasserman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Results of Phase III randomized clinical trials can be categorized into three groups: positive, null, and negative. The jargon used in discussing results of comparative studies requires clarification because misclassification can result in incorrect interpretation. A positive result indicates that the experimental therapy(ies) is(are) superior to standard therapy. A null result indicates that no statistically significant difference between therapies was found; hence, standard therapy should not be replaced. A negative result indicates that the experimental therapy had a deleterious effect compared to standard therapy. This article presents a discussion of these categories and examples of each.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials, Phase III as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Scott, T Wasserman. 1997-11-01. When is a negative study not negative?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00455-0

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

Adaptive biased-coin designs for skewing the allocation proportion in clinical trials with normal responses.

Response adaptive designs are used in phase III clinical trial for skewing the allocation pattern towards the better treatments. We use optimum design theory to derive adaptive designs when the responses are normally distributed. The performance of the designs is studied with respect to the loss and the proportion of allocation to different treatments. The adaptive design does not affect inference.

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗
PubMed2005

Statistical consideration of the strategy for demonstrating clinical evidence of effectiveness--one larger vs two smaller pivotal studies.

As a regulatory strategy, it is nowadays not uncommon to conduct one confirmatory pivotal clinical trial, instead of two, to demonstrate efficacy and safety in drug development. This paper is intended to investigate the statistical foundation of such an approach. The one-study approach is compared with the conventional two-study approach in terms of power, type-I error, and fundamental statistical assumptions. Necessary requirements for a single-study model is provided in order to maintain equivalent evidence as that from a two-study model. In general, one-study model is valid only under a 'one population' assumption. In addition, higher data quality and more convincing and robust results need to be demonstrated in such cases. However, when 'one-population' assumption is valid and appropriate methods are selected, a one-study model can have a better power using the same sample size. The paper also investigates statistical assumptions and methods for making an overall inference when a two-study model has been used. The methods for integrated analysis are evaluated. It is important for statisticians to select correct pooling strategy based on the project objective and statistical hypothesis.

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗
PubMed2005

New synthetic surfactants: the next generation?

Surfactant preparations have been proven to improve clinical outcome of infants at risk for or having respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). In clinical trials, ani mal-derived surfactant preparations reduce the risk of pneumothorax and mortality when compared to non-protein-containing synthetic surfactant preparations. In part, this is thought to be due to the presence of surfactant proteins in animal-derived surfactant preparations. Four native surfactant proteins have been identified. The hydrophobic surfactant proteins B (SP-B) and C (SP-C) are tightly bound to phospholipids. These proteins have important roles in maintaining the surface tension-lowering properties of pulmonary surfactant. Surfactant protein A (SP-A) and D (SP-D) are extremely hydrophilic and are not retained in the preparation of any commercial animal-derived surfactant products. These proteins are thought to have a role in recycling surfactant and improving host defense. There is concern that animal-derived products may have some batch-to-batch variation regarding the levels of native pulmonary surfactant proteins. In addition, there is concern regarding the hypothetical risk of transmission of viral or unconventional infectious agents from an animal source. New surfactant preparations, composed of synthetic phospholipids and essential hydrophobic surfactant protein analogs, have been developed. These surfactant protein analogs have been produced by peptide synthesis and recombinant technology to provide a new class of synthetic surfactants that may be a suitable alternative to animal-derived surfactants. Preliminary clinical studies have shown that treatment with these novel surfactant preparations can ameliorate RDS and improve clinical outcome. Clinicians will need to further understand any differences in clinical effects between available products.

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗