% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Sherry:284657,
author = {A. D. Sherry and P. Msaouel and Z. R. McCaw and J. Abi
Jaoude and E. J. Hsu and R. Kouzy and R. Patel and Y. Yang
and T. A. Lin and C. M. Taniguchi and C. Rödel$^*$ and E.
Fokas$^*$ and C. Tang and C. D. Fuller and B. Minsky and T.
Meirson and R. Sun and E. B. Ludmir},
title = {{P}revalence and implications of significance testing for
baseline covariate imbalance in randomised cancer clinical
trials: {T}he {T}able 1 {F}allacy.},
journal = {European journal of cancer},
volume = {194},
issn = {0014-2964},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-02058},
pages = {113357},
year = {2023},
abstract = {The 'Table 1 Fallacy' refers to the unsound use of
significance testing for comparing the distributions of
baseline variables between randomised groups to draw
erroneous conclusions about balance or imbalance. We
performed a cross-sectional study of the Table 1 Fallacy in
phase III oncology trials.From ClinicalTrials.gov, 1877
randomised trials were screened. Multivariable logistic
regressions evaluated predictors of the Table 1 Fallacy.A
total of 765 randomised controlled trials involving 553,405
patients were analysed. The Table 1 Fallacy was observed in
$25\%$ of trials (188 of 765), with $3\%$ of comparisons
deemed significant (59 of 2353), approximating the typical
$5\%$ type I error assertion probability. Application of
trial-level multiplicity corrections reduced the rate of
significant findings to $0.3\%$ (six of 2345 tests). Factors
associated with lower odds of the Table 1 Fallacy included
industry sponsorship (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.29, $95\%$
confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.47; multiplicity-corrected P
< 0.0001), larger trial size (≥795 versus <280 patients;
aOR 0.32, $95\%$ CI 0.19-0.53; multiplicity-corrected P =
0.0008), and publication in a European versus American
journal (aOR 0.06, $95\%$ CI 0.03-0.13;
multiplicity-corrected P < 0.0001).This study highlights the
persistence of the Table 1 Fallacy in contemporary oncology
randomised controlled trials, with one of every four trials
testing for baseline differences after randomisation.
Significance testing is a suboptimal method for identifying
unsound randomisation procedures and may encourage
misleading inferences. Journal-level enforcement is a
possible strategy to help mitigate this fallacy.},
keywords = {Covariate imbalance (Other) / Oncology (Other) / Phase III
(Other) / Randomised controlled trials (Other) /
Significance testing for baseline characteristics (Other) /
Table 1 Fallacy (Other) / Testing for baseline differences
(Other)},
cin = {FM01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)FM01-20160331},
pnm = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:37827064},
doi = {10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113357},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/284657},
}