Volume 36, Issue 6 pp. 637-641
COMMENTARY

Estimating risk from underpowered, but statistically significant, studies: was APPROVe on TARGET?

A. La Caze BPharm BA(Hons) PhD

A. La Caze BPharm BA(Hons) PhD

School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
S. Duffull PhD

S. Duffull PhD

School of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 12 December 2010
Citations: 9
A. La Caze, School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 3346 1985; fax: +61 7 3346 1999; e-mail: [email protected]

Summary

What is known and objective: The importance of statistical power is widely recognized from a pre-trial perspective, and when interpreting results that are not statistically significant. It is less well recognized that poor power can lead to inflated estimates of the effect size when statistically significant results are observed. We use trial simulations to quantify this bias, which we term ‘significant-result bias’.

Comment: Significant-result bias is explained, and simulations are used to estimate possible significant-result bias in the rate of thrombotic events observed in the APPROVe trial. Statistically significant results, on outcomes for which there is empirical evidence of poor power, may provide inflated estimates of the size of effect.

What is new and conclusion: If independent evidence is available to judge the likely effect size of an underpowered statistical test, trial simulations can provide a method for quantifying significant-result bias.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.