- Stuart J Pocock, professor of medical statistics (Stuart.Pocock@lshtm.ac.uk)1
- 1 Medical Statistics Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
- Accepted 21 April 2006
The complexity of statistical methods for analysing clinical data can make interpreting clinical trial reports a daunting task for many readers. However, the key result of many trials could be presented and interpreted using quite basic statistical methods. The overall spirit of this article is to encourage all interested in understanding clinical trials to “feel the data” rather than get too absorbed in the technicalities (and occasional confusions) of advanced statistical techniques.
For many trials the primary outcome is a disease event. This might be death or a composite outcome such as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The standard statistical methods—Cox proportional hazard models and log rank tests—take account of variation in patient follow-up times, but the consequent hazard ratios, confidence intervals, and P values seem a mysterious “black box” to some readers. Alternatively, if events relate to a fixed follow-up time then methods for comparing two proportions (for example, the χ2 test) may be used.
This article describes a much easier method than these, which readers can use to assess quickly the strength of evidence for a treatment difference in an event outcome. It's surprising even how many statisticians don't know this simplest test: I first heard of it from a cardiologist.
The simplest test
Consider a randomised clinical trial with two treatment groups of roughly equal size. Let the outcome of interest be a clinical event.
The key data are the numbers of patients experiencing the event by treatment group. The figure shows how to perform a statistical test of significance based solely on these two numbers.
How to perform the simplest statistical test of significance
Calculate the difference in the two numbers of events and divide by the square root of their sum. Call the resulting number z. Under the null hypothesis that the two treatments have identical influence …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012