
doi: 10.2307/2532297
pmid: 1637967
Since Pocock (1977, Biometrika 64, 191-199), many methods have been developed for group sequential analysis of clinical trials. However, these methods remain underemployed partly because of inconsistencies of sequential testing [Berry (1987, The Statistician 36, 181-189)]. This paper considers a new approach, which, by requiring that a succession of interim analyses be significant at the alpha level, both preserves the overall significance level alpha and does not present some of the inconsistencies of the previous methods. Results are obtained for a normal or binary response and for survival data. A comparison with the usual group sequential testing is also presented.
Analysis of Variance, Clinical Trials as Topic, Random Allocation, Sequential statistical analysis, Models, Statistical, Humans, Mathematics, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, Probability
Analysis of Variance, Clinical Trials as Topic, Random Allocation, Sequential statistical analysis, Models, Statistical, Humans, Mathematics, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, Probability
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 11 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
