Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Sequential Medical Trials

Anscombe, F. J.·1963·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

In an extended review of Sequential Medical Trials by P. Armitage, the statistical principles which should govern the analysis of experimental observations, and the planning of experiments, are discussed. It is suggested that the operating-characteristic concepts of the Neyman-Pearson theory of tests are inappropriate to the analysis and interpretation of experimental data; the likelihood principle should be followed instead. The planning of medical trials under an ethical injunction against unnecessary continuance of inferior treatments is studied in some detail. The propriety of such trials is considered.

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 · 10.1080/01621459.1963.10500851

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 339

Metadata

Authors
Anscombe, F. J.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
1963-06
Volume
58
Issue
302
Pages
365-383
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2009200425
Cited by
339
References
0
FWCI
9.02
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: Sequential Medical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500851
The paper
Anscombe, F. J. (1963). Sequential Medical Trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500851

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.