This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kristan A. L'Abbe, MSc; Allan S. Detsky, MD, PhD; Alexander G. Logan, MD
University of Toronto

JAMA. 1985;253(21):3091.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

We would like to point out a discrepancy between the final report of the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (LRC-CPPT)¹ and the report on the design and implementation of this trial.² In the article on planning, the following statements appear in Appendix D under the heading, "Calculation of Sample Size": "Since the time, magnitude, and cost of this study make it unlikely that it could ever be repeated, it was essential to be sure that any observed beneficial effect of cholesterol lowering was a real one. Therefore, alpha was set at 0.01 rather than the usual 0.05." However, when the results appear for the primary end points and all-cause mortality, they are reported in relation to a level of significance of.05. We are concerned by this apparent post-hoc relaxation of the -level used to judge the statistical significance of the LRC-CPPT results. Despite . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?