Value of Central Event Adjudication
Author(s) -
David Kerr,
Elaine Nasco
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
stroke
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.397
H-Index - 319
eISSN - 1524-4628
pISSN - 0039-2499
DOI - 10.1161/strokeaha.109.562181
Subject(s) - adjudication , medicine , false positive paradox , event (particle physics) , value (mathematics) , spurious relationship , verdict , point (geometry) , law , computer science , artificial intelligence , machine learning , physics , geometry , mathematics , quantum mechanics , political science
To the Editor:The Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study (PROGRESS) Collaborative Group notes that the End Point Adjudication Committee (EPAC) process had no discernible impact on that trial’s statistical conclusions.1 However, we caution that this result is not necessarily representative and that an EPAC is a wise investment for most studies. This claim is supported by the following points.First, the rejection rate of 9.9% seen in PROGRESS is low by our experience. Traditionally, one asks investigators to “cast a wide net” and send in any possible event, even if they believe it unlikely to be a true event, to ensure that no true events escape detection (ie, no false-negatives). This process leads to more spurious events, but that …
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom