The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: If A bests B and B bests Cinseparate trials, is A better than C?

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 2, Issue , 2002, Pages 1-5

  Baker, Stuart G ^a   Kramer, Barnett S ^b  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; ERROR; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LUNG CANCER; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PNEUMONIA; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STOMACH CANCER;

EID: 2642514351     PISSN: 14712288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-2-13     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Baker SG, Kramer BS: Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies. Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine 2001, 10:867-872
2. Langford E, Schwertman N, Owens M: Is the property of being positively correlated transitive? The American Statistician 2001, 55:322-325
3. Paulos JA: I Think Therefore I Laugh: The Flip Side of Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press 2000, 23-29
4. Wainer H: The BK-Plot: Making Simpson's paradox clear to the masses, Chance 15:60-62
5. Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Woolner LB, Taylor WF, Miller WE, Muhm JR, et al: Screening for lung cancer: a critique of the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer 1991, 67(4 Suppl):1155-64
6. Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Fagerstrom RM, Williams DE, Fontana R, Taylor WF, Prorok PC: Lung Cancer Mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: Impact of Extended Follow-up. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000, 92:1308-1316