Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The problem of early assessment of results of clinical trials of cancer treatment is discussed, and the results of a computer simulation experiment presented. These show the extent to which repeated assessment of results before the end of a trial may invalidate the use of the usual significance tests. In typical practical situations, the use of yearly assessments and the acceptance as “significant” of a difference more than 1·96 times its standard error can increase two or threefold the probability of finding a “significant” difference where in fact no real difference exists between the treatments. This may be avoided if a more stringent criterion for significance is used in the early assessments. The results of a further set of simulation experiments are presented, where a difference in an early assessment is only considered significant if it is more than three times its standard error. This procedure enables results to be watched as a trial proceeds, but does not invalidate the use of a standard significance test to compare the final results. At the same time a small saving is achieved in the number of patients required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J. L. Haybittle (1971) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: