Recommendations on multiple testing adjustment in multi-arm trials with a shared control group
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- [10]10. ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation). Statistical Principals for Clinical Trials E9. 1998.
- [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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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