Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Statistics: The Problem of Examining Accumulating Data More Than Once

McPherson, Klim·1974·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

A RECURRING decision that has to be made in planning a controlled clinical trial of a new treatment is the size of the patient sample necessary. In this decision, a major determinant is ethical, for the investigator must keep at a minimum the number of patients exposed and the duration of the exposure to the inferior treatment. To achieve this ethical goal, the investigator may be tempted to analyze his results repeatedly as data accumulate. Just such a procedure was apparently used in a study recently reported in the Journal.1 , 2 Yet, as my communication will show, the use of conventionally . . .

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 · 10.1056/nejm197402282900907

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

See all 183

Metadata

Authors
McPherson, K.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1974-02-28
Volume
290
Issue
9
Pages
501-502
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2064859316
Cited by
183
References
0
FWCI
4.47
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistics: The Problem of Examining Accumulating Data More Than Once. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm197402282900907
The paper
McPherson, K. (1974). Statistics: The Problem of Examining Accumulating Data More Than Once. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm197402282900907

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.