Interpreting the results of secondary end points and subgroup analyses in clinical trials: Should we lock the crazy aunt in the attic?

British Medical Journal

Volumn 322, Issue 7292, 2001, Pages 989-991

  Freemantle, N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0035926046     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7292.989     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Effect of amlodipine on morbidity and mortality in severe chronic heart failure
2. International conference on harmonisation; guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials
3. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons
4. What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments?
5. Carvedilol and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process: The FDA paradigm and reflections on hypothesis testing
6. Estimation issues in clinical trials and overviews
7. The FDA's critique of the anturane reinfarction trial
8. End-point interpretation in clinical trials: The case for discipline
9. The evidence for β blockers in heart failure
10. Effects of controlled-release metoprolol on total mortality, hospitalizations, and well-being in patients with heart failure: The metoprolol CR/XL randomised intervention trial in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF)
11. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials
12. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples
13. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses
14. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses
15. Something rotten in the state of clinical and economic analyses