SCORE研究报告8:所有两两比较方法的封闭检验。

Neal Oden, Paul C Vanveldhuisen, Ingrid U Scott, Michael S Ip
{"title":"SCORE研究报告8:所有两两比较方法的封闭检验。","authors":"Neal Oden,&nbsp;Paul C Vanveldhuisen,&nbsp;Ingrid U Scott,&nbsp;Michael S Ip","doi":"10.1177/009286151004400405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We compare five closed tests for strong control of family-wide type I error (FWE) while making all pair-wise comparisons of means in clinical trials with multiple arms such as the SCORE Study. We simulated outcomes of the SCORE Study under its design hypotheses, and used p-values from chi-squared tests to compare performance of a \"pairwise\" closed test described below to Bonferroni and Hochberg adjusted p-values. \"Pairwise\" closed testing was more powerful than Hochberg's method by several definitions of multiple-test power. Simulations over a wider parameter space, and considering other closed methods, confirmed this superiority for p-values based on normal, logistic, and Poisson distributions. The power benefit of \"pair-wise\" closed testing begins to disappear with 5 or more arms, and with unbalanced designs. For trials with 4 or fewer arms and balanced designs, investigators should consider using \"pair-wise\" closed testing in preference to Shaffer's, Hommel's, and Hochberg's approaches when making all pairwise comparisons of means. If not all p-values from the closed family are available, Shaffer's method is a good choice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51023,"journal":{"name":"Drug Information Journal","volume":"44 4","pages":"405-420"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/009286151004400405","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SCORE Study Report 8: Closed Tests for All Pair-Wise Comparisons of Means.\",\"authors\":\"Neal Oden,&nbsp;Paul C Vanveldhuisen,&nbsp;Ingrid U Scott,&nbsp;Michael S Ip\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/009286151004400405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We compare five closed tests for strong control of family-wide type I error (FWE) while making all pair-wise comparisons of means in clinical trials with multiple arms such as the SCORE Study. We simulated outcomes of the SCORE Study under its design hypotheses, and used p-values from chi-squared tests to compare performance of a \\\"pairwise\\\" closed test described below to Bonferroni and Hochberg adjusted p-values. \\\"Pairwise\\\" closed testing was more powerful than Hochberg's method by several definitions of multiple-test power. Simulations over a wider parameter space, and considering other closed methods, confirmed this superiority for p-values based on normal, logistic, and Poisson distributions. The power benefit of \\\"pair-wise\\\" closed testing begins to disappear with 5 or more arms, and with unbalanced designs. For trials with 4 or fewer arms and balanced designs, investigators should consider using \\\"pair-wise\\\" closed testing in preference to Shaffer's, Hommel's, and Hochberg's approaches when making all pairwise comparisons of means. If not all p-values from the closed family are available, Shaffer's method is a good choice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug Information Journal\",\"volume\":\"44 4\",\"pages\":\"405-420\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/009286151004400405\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug Information Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151004400405\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Information Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151004400405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

我们比较了5个对全家族I型误差(FWE)的强控制的封闭试验,同时对多组临床试验(如SCORE研究)的均值进行了两两比较。我们在其设计假设下模拟SCORE研究的结果,并使用卡方检验的p值来比较下面描述的“两两”封闭检验的性能与Bonferroni和Hochberg调整的p值。从多重测试能力的几个定义来看,“两两”封闭测试比Hochberg的方法更有效。在更广泛的参数空间上进行模拟,并考虑其他封闭方法,证实了基于正态分布、逻辑分布和泊松分布的p值的这种优势。对于5个或更多的手臂,以及不平衡的设计,“成对”封闭测试的力量优势开始消失。对于4个或更少的试验臂和平衡设计,在进行所有两两比较时,研究者应考虑使用“两两”封闭检验,而不是Shaffer’s、Hommel’s和Hochberg’s方法。如果不是所有封闭族的p值都是可用的,那么Shaffer方法是一个很好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

SCORE Study Report 8: Closed Tests for All Pair-Wise Comparisons of Means.

SCORE Study Report 8: Closed Tests for All Pair-Wise Comparisons of Means.

SCORE Study Report 8: Closed Tests for All Pair-Wise Comparisons of Means.

SCORE Study Report 8: Closed Tests for All Pair-Wise Comparisons of Means.

We compare five closed tests for strong control of family-wide type I error (FWE) while making all pair-wise comparisons of means in clinical trials with multiple arms such as the SCORE Study. We simulated outcomes of the SCORE Study under its design hypotheses, and used p-values from chi-squared tests to compare performance of a "pairwise" closed test described below to Bonferroni and Hochberg adjusted p-values. "Pairwise" closed testing was more powerful than Hochberg's method by several definitions of multiple-test power. Simulations over a wider parameter space, and considering other closed methods, confirmed this superiority for p-values based on normal, logistic, and Poisson distributions. The power benefit of "pair-wise" closed testing begins to disappear with 5 or more arms, and with unbalanced designs. For trials with 4 or fewer arms and balanced designs, investigators should consider using "pair-wise" closed testing in preference to Shaffer's, Hommel's, and Hochberg's approaches when making all pairwise comparisons of means. If not all p-values from the closed family are available, Shaffer's method is a good choice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drug Information Journal
Drug Information Journal 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信