Cited by 366Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Multiplicity in randomised trials I: endpoints and treatments

Schulz, Kenneth F, Grimes, David A·2005·The Lancet

Abstract

Multiplicity problems emerge from investigators looking at many additional endpoints and treatment group comparisons. Thousands of potential comparisons can emanate from one trial. Investigators might only report the significant comparisons, an unscientific practice if unwitting, and fraudulent if intentional. Researchers must report all the endpoints analysed and treatments compared. Some statisticians propose statistical adjustments to account for multiplicity. Simply defined, they test for no effects in all the primary endpoints undertaken versus an effect in one or more of those endpoints. In general, statistical adjustments for multiplicity provide crude answers to an irrelevant question. However, investigators should use adjustments when the clinical decision-making argument rests solely on one or more of the primary endpoints being significant. In these cases, adjustments somewhat rescue scattershot analyses. Readers need to be aware of the potential for under-reporting of analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66461-6

Cites

29 of 29 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A.
Affiliations
Family Health International 360 (US)
Corresponding author
Schulz, Kenneth F
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-04
Volume
365
Issue
9470
Pages
1591-1595
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2034698532
Cited by
366
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 19
FWCI
13.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
multiplicity, multiple endpoints, network meta-analysis, statistical adjustment, primary endpoint, selective reporting, randomised trials, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Endpoint Determination

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