Cited by 825Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Adjust for multiple comparisons? It’s not that simple

Open access
Althouse, Andrew D.·2016·The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

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 · 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.11.024

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons due to the small sample size and exploratory nature of the reported outcomes.

    “As with the data contained in the original report [16], P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons due to the small sample size and exploratory nature of these reported outcomes [33,34].”

    From Evaluation of exploratory fluid biomarkers from a phase 1 senolytic trial in mild Alzheimer's disease (2025) · cites this paper as [33]

    In “The Statistician’s Page,” Althouse recommends reporting exploratory analyses without multiple-comparison adjustment and identifying them as exploratory. The cited passage does not give small sample size as a reason for foregoing correction, so it supports only part of the stated rationale. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Althouse, A. D.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Althouse, Andrew D.
Venue
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
101
Issue
5
Pages
1644-1645
ISSN
0003-4975 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2338184685
Cited by
825
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 111 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 128 · 2020: 117 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
27.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
multiple comparisons, multiple testing correction, subgroup analysis, ancillary studies, secondary outcomes, statistical significance
MeSH terms
Humans, Biomedical Research

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