Cited by 1,299Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?

Open access
Feise, Ronald J·2002·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Readers may question the interpretation of findings in clinical trials when multiple outcome measures are used without adjustment of the p-value. This question arises because of the increased risk of Type I errors (findings of false "significance") when multiple simultaneous hypotheses are tested at set p-values. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the need to make appropriate p-value adjustments in clinical trials to compensate for a possible increased risk in committing Type I errors when multiple outcome measures are used. DISCUSSION: The classicists believe that the chance of finding at least one test statistically significant due to chance and incorrectly declaring a difference increases as the number of comparisons increases. The rationalists have the following objections to that theory: 1) P-value adjustments are calculated based on how many tests are to be considered, and that number has been defined arbitrarily and variably; 2) P-value adjustments reduce the chance of making type I errors, but they increase the chance of making type II errors or needing to increase the sample size. SUMMARY: Readers should balance a study's statistical significance with the magnitude of effect, the quality of the study and with findings from other studies. Researchers facing multiple outcome measures might want to either select a primary outcome measure or use a global assessment measure, rather than adjusting the p-value.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-2-8

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Feise RJ Behavioral-graded activity compared with usual care after first-time disk surgery: Considerations of the design of a randomized clinical trial (Letter). J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001 24 67 68 11174699 10.1067/mmt.2001.112007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feise, R. J.
Corresponding author
Feise, Ronald J
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2002-06-17
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
8-8
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2139498473
Cited by
1,299
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 133 · 2020: 95 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 98 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 32
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
p-value adjustment, type I error, multiple comparisons, clinical trials, primary outcomes, statistical significance, sample size
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Confidence Intervals, Treatment Outcome

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