Abstract
In planning trials, good practice requires prespecification of analyses to control the probability of false positives and to enable a coherent interpretation of the result. In reviewing trials, analyses are usually not preplanned. Although the goals of reviewers are neither the same as nor opposite to those of planners, reviews are also subject to concerns about multiple, post hoc analyses. The probability of false negatives is not controlled, and the multiple analyses can be difficult or impossible to interpret together coherently. We consider several types of multiplicity that arise in reviews rather than in submissions and offer advice for coping with them.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
