Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39828909›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2025

The effect of estimating prevalences on the population-wise error rate.

Remi Luschei, Werner Brannath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Remi LuscheiInstitute for Statistics and Competence Center for Clinical Trials, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-3812-1142
Werner BrannathInstitute for Statistics and Competence Center for Clinical Trials, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8622-3904

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The population-wise error rate is a type I error rate for clinical trials with multiple target populations. In such trials, a treatment is tested for its efficacy in each population. The population-wise error rate is defined as the probability that a randomly selected, future patient will be exposed to an inefficient treatment based on the study results. It can be understood and computed as an average of strata-specific family wise error rates and involves the prevalences of these strata. A major issue of this concept is that the prevalences are usually unknown in practice, so that the population-wise error rate cannot be directly controlled. Instead, one could use an estimator based on the given sample, like their maximum-likelihood estimator under a multinomial distribution. In this article, we demonstrate through simulations that this does not substantially inflate the true population-wise error rate. We differentiate between the expected population-wise error rate, which is almost perfectly controlled, and study-specific values of the population-wise error rate which are conditioned on all subgroup sample sizes and vary within a narrow range. Thereby, we consider up to eight different overlapping populations and moderate to large sample sizes. In these settings, we also consider the maximum strata-wise family wise error rate, which is found to be, on average, at least bounded by twice the significance level used for population-wise error rate control.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationLikelihood FunctionsPrevalenceStatistical DistributionsBiasHealth Services Needs and DemandSample SizeFamily wise error ratemultiple testingpersonalized medicinepopulation-wise error rateprevalence estimationumbrella trials

Identifiers

PMID39828909
PMCPMC11874581

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.