To the Editor: How could the Journal, which six years earlier published a landmark paper on the need for adequate sample size in controlled clinical trials,1 now publish without comment the paper by Cello et al. (Dec. 20 issue),2 which overinterprets the negative results of a trial based on a very modest number of patients? These authors randomly assigned 52 patients to one of two alternative forms of treatment and “failed to demonstrate any significant difference in long-term survival. …” They go on to state that “acute and vigorously repeated endoscopic sclerotherapy is at least as good as, and.
ASJC Scopus subject areas