[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Steichen, Thomas" <STEICHT@rjrt.com> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: RE: interim analysis in epidemiologic studies |

Date |
Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:53:25 -0400 |

Ricardo Ovaldia writes: > I know that interim analysis are used in clinical > trials often with a "stopping rule" so that a trial > can be stopped if participants are being put at risk > unnecessarily. However, I am uncertain about the > effect of multiple looks of the data on the p-values > of the final analysis in epidemiologic studies such as > case-control studies. Two scenarios come to mind: > > 1. A case control study in which we are enrolling a > fix number of subjects (say 100 cases and 100 > controls). If I compute odds ratio when I have > enrolled 25%, 50% and 75% of subjects does that affect > my p-value when I have 100% of the subjects? I do not > think it does because I set my final sample size to a > given value at the beginning. > > 2. Assume that now my sample size is not fixed but I > decide to enroll patients for a fixed amount of time, > say a year. How do the interim analysis affect the > final p-values? > > Note that I am not using a stopping rule in either > case. Your thoughts will be much appreciated. In my opinion for the scenarios you defined, I do not believe a preliminary look at the results would bias or invalidate either the interpretation or the apparent p-value "level" of the final statistics. In both cases, you have a predefined limit (on # of cases & controls in 1. and on the case ascertainment time period in 2.) that is unaffected by your peek at the data, and you suggest that you will not change any of the enrollment rules based on this look at the data. On the other hand, I have seen situations where researchers have used a preliminary look at the data to justify increasing their desired case count or ascertainment time period (with the intent of increasing the total case count) because they did not believe they would obtain "significance" with the original plan. Such a procedure, as we all know, totally invalids the final statistics, since any difference will eventually become "significant" if we simply add enough data. This was a study where the researchers had performed a power analysis during the planning stage to determine the needed sample size to have reasonable power to detect the odds ratio they believed would be important to find (1.75) if it existed; they eventually reported a "significant" 1.29 based on a much-expanded study. I have also seen a preliminary look used to modify the eligibility requirements for participants in order to increase the number of cases during the specified enrollment period. Unfortunately the eligibility modifications differentially affected cases vs. controls, which led to a bias that was difficult to characterize but probably caused an increased likelihood of the results being declared "significant." Both of the above situations occurred in large studies funded by the U.S. Public Health Service, were led by researchers supposedly above reproach, and involved health endpoints where "big brother" knew what the "answer" was supposed to be (for our own good!). Tom ----------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message, including any attachment(s), contains information that may be confidential, protected by the attorney-client or other legal privileges, and/or proprietary non-public information. If you are not an intended recipient of this message or an authorized assistant to an intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message and/or any of its attachments (if any) by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**st: histogramm and dates** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: histogramm and dates** - Previous by thread:
**st: histogramm and dates** - Next by thread:
**st: RV: endogeneity** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |