Cited by 62Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceProbability and Statistical Research

Recommendations on multiple testing adjustment in multi-arm trials with a shared control group

Open access
Howard, Dena R, Brown, Julia M, Todd, Susan, Gregory, Walter M·2018·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

Multi-arm clinical trials assessing multiple experimental treatments against a shared control group can offer efficiency advantages over independent trials through assessing an increased number of hypotheses. Published opinion is divided on the requirement for multiple testing adjustment to control the family-wise type-I error rate (FWER). The probability of a false positive error in multi-arm trials compared to equivalent independent trials is affected by the correlation between comparisons due to sharing control data. We demonstrate that this correlation in fact leads to a reduction in the FWER, therefore FWER adjustment is not recommended solely due to sharing control data. In contrast, the correlation increases the probability of multiple false positive outcomes across the hypotheses, although standard FWER adjustment methods do not control for this. A stringent critical value adjustment is proposed to maintain equivalent evidence of superiority in two correlated comparisons to that obtained within independent trials. FWER adjustment is only required if there is an increased chance of making a single claim of effectiveness by testing multiple hypotheses, not due to sharing control data. For competing experimental therapies, the correlation between comparisons can be advantageous as it eliminates bias due to the experimental therapies being compared to different control populations.

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 · 10.1177/0962280216664759

Cites

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?

  • The level of significance for multiple testing of primary outcomes was not adjusted, to control the type II error rate, given the pilot character of the study and the comparison of distinct treatments with a waitlist control.

    “We did not adjust the level of significance for multiple testing of primary outcomes to be able to control the type II error rate, to account for the pilot-character of this study in testing a newly developed miCBT, and since we compared distinct treatments with a WL control (50).”

    From Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for the Prophylaxis of Migraine in Adults: A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [50]

    Section 3.2 and Section 7.1 say that multiple-testing adjustment may be unnecessary when distinct therapies are tested against a shared control and each hypothesis supports a different claim of effectiveness. The paper does not give the pilot character of a study or control of the type II error rate as reasons to forgo adjustment; its analysis concerns type I error and familywise error rates. It also does not assess this study's waitlist comparison specifically. (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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 62

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [10]10. ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation). Statistical Principals for Clinical Trials E9. 1998.
  2. [15]15. Proschan M and Follman D. Multiple comparisons with control in a single experiment ver. The American Statistician. 1995; 49: 144.

Authors
Howard, D. R., Brown, J. M., Todd, S., & Gregory, W. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Corresponding author
Howard, Dena R
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2016-09-19
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
1513-1530
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W2512518579
Cited by
62
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (DRF-2012-05-364, NF-SI-0514-10050)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
Keywords
multiple testing correction, multi-arm clinical trials, hypothesis testing
MeSH terms
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antineoplastic Agents, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Dermatologic Agents, Humans, Multiple Myeloma, Probability, Psoriasis, Colorectal Neoplasms, Survival Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Control Groups, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

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