To the Editor: An editorial by Stewart alludes to the problem of silent multiple comparisons when interpreting P values from cancer cluster investigations.1 Visible multiplicities such as occur with pre-specified subgroup analyses or sequential monitoring of trials are difficult enough, but at least in these circumstances we know how many multiple comparisons are under consideration. More difficult are silent multiplicities such as occur with cluster investigations (and also with publication bias2 or reporting bias3) where we do not know how many multiple comparisons should be considered.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC.
- 1. Stewart B. The ABC breast cancer cluster: the bad news about a good outcome [editorial]. Med J Aust 2010; 192: 629-631. <MJA full text>
- 2. Easterbrook P, Berlin J, Gopalan R, Matthews D. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-872.
- 3. Chan A, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr M, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291: 2457-2465.
- 4. Armstrong B, Aitken J, Sim M, et al. Breast cancer at the ABC Toowong Queensland: final report of the Independent Review and Scientific Investigation Panel. 2007. http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/Breast_Cancer_Toowong_Final_Report.pdf (accessed Jun 2010) .