Cited by 136Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Measurement in clinical trials: A neglected issue for statisticians?

Senn, Stephen, Julious, Steven·2009·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Biostatisticians have frequently uncritically accepted the measurements provided by their medical colleagues engaged in clinical research. Such measures often involve considerable loss of information. Particularly, unfortunate is the widespread use of the so-called 'responder analysis', which may involve not only a loss of information through dichotomization, but also extravagant and unjustified causal inference regarding individual treatment effects at the patient level, and, increasingly, the use of the so-called number needed to treat scale of measurement. Other problems involve inefficient use of baseline measurements, the use of covariates measured after the start of treatment, the interpretation of titrations and composite response measures. Many of these bad practices are becoming enshrined in the regulatory guidance to the pharmaceutical industry. We consider the losses involved in inappropriate measures and suggest that statisticians should pay more attention to this aspect of their work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.3603

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Current tools for the homogeneity assumption might not help with treatment-effect heterogeneity in randomized clinical trials, where several factors can drive variation in treatment response.

    “For example, our current tools to tackle the homogeneity assumption may not help address the treatment-effect het- erogeneity problem (67–69) in research clinical trials (RCTs), where multiple factors may drive treatment-response variation.”

    From Methods and challenges for assessing heterogeneity (2020) · cites this paper as [68]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Senn, S., & Julious, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Senn, Stephen
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05-19
Volume
28
Issue
26
Pages
3189-3209
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W1971440802
Cited by
136
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 10
FWCI
8.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
responder analysis, dichotomization, information loss, number needed to treat, baseline measurement, titration, causal inference
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Electrocardiography, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Cross-Over Studies, Biostatistics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review