Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 520

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical

Colditz, Graham A., Miller, James N., Mosteller, Frederick·1989·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.4780080408
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We analysed 113 reports published in 1980 in a sample of medical journals to relate features of study design to the magnitude of gains attributed to new therapies over old. Overall we rated 87 per cent of new therapies as improvements over standard therapies. The mean gain (measured by the Mann—Whitney statistic) was relatively constant across study designs, except for non‐randomized controlled trials with sequential assignment to therapy, which showed a significantly higher likelihood that a patient would do better on the innovation than on standard therapy (p = 0.004). Randomized controlled trials that did not use a double‐blind design had a higher likelihood of showing a gain for the innovation than did double‐blind trials (p = 0.02). Any evaluation of an innovation may include both bias and the true efficacy of the new therapy, therefore we may consider making adjustments for the average bias associated with a study design. When interpreting an evaluation of a new therapy, readers should consider the impact of the following average adjustments to the Mann—Whitney statistic: for trials with non‐random sequential assignment a decrease of 0.15, for non‐double‐blind randomized controlled trials a decrease of 0.11.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.4780080408

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Colditz, G. A., Miller, J. N., & Mosteller, F.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1989-04
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
441-454
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.4780080408
OpenAlex
W2169997396
Cited by
520
References
0
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.