Must clinical trials be large? The interpretation of p‐values and the combination of test results
- 1 June 1990
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 9 (6) , 601-614
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780090606
Abstract
The notion that small, well planned clinical trials may not be worth undertaking is shown to arise from an overemphasis on just one way of interpreting P‐values. Alternative forms of P and other interpretations are put forward. Attention is drawn to some aspects of the theory of hypothesis testing which seem less well known than they should be.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Tests for Differences Between Several Small ProportionsJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 1988
- The Effect of Sample Size on the Meaning of Significance TestsThe American Statistician, 1986
- Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials?Statistics in Medicine, 1984
- A Comparison of Alternative Tests for the 2 × 2 Comparative TrialJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 1982
- Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examplesBritish Journal of Cancer, 1977
- The role of significance testing: some data with a messageBiometrika, 1969
- Expected Significance Level as a Sensitivity Index for Test StatisticsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1965
- Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 TestsPublished by JSTOR ,1954
- Statistical control of counting experimentsBiometrika, 1952
- IX. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypothesesPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 1933