Interpreting the totality of clinical study data: is there a better way? Statistical methodology for quantitatively interpreting clinical study data across efficacy endpoints.
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.cct.2026.108452
- Published
- 2026 Aug 31
- Container
- Contemporary clinical trials
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Open access
- unknown
Credibility signals
limited evidence Score 43/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.1016/j.cct.2026.108452,
title = {Interpreting the totality of clinical study data: is there a better way? Statistical methodology for quantitatively interpreting clinical study data across efficacy endpoints.},
author = {Meske DS and Dworkin RH and Gudin J and Jaros M and Vought K and Horine S and Lissin D and Vaughn B},
year = {2026},
journal = {Contemporary clinical trials},
doi = {10.1016/j.cct.2026.108452},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2026.108452}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Interpreting the totality of clinical study data: is there a better way? Statistical methodology for quantitatively interpreting clinical study data across efficacy endpoints. AU - Meske DS AU - Dworkin RH AU - Gudin J AU - Jaros M AU - Vought K AU - Horine S AU - Lissin D AU - Vaughn B PY - 2026 JO - Contemporary clinical trials DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2026.108452 UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2026.108452 ER -
APA
DS, M., RH, D., J, G., M, J., K, V., S, H., D, L., & B, V. (2026). Interpreting the totality of clinical study data: is there a better way? Statistical methodology for quantitatively interpreting clinical study data across efficacy endpoints.. Contemporary clinical trials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2026.108452
Source records
- pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-25T19:03:59.971Z