Download PDFPDF

Making the world a simpler place: the modeller’s temptation to seek alternative trial results
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Example of a modeller’s temptation to seek alternative trial results
    • Sanne M Thysen, PhD student Bandim Health Project, Guinea-Bissau
    • Other Contributors:
      • Ane B Fisker, Associate Professor
      • Christine S Benn, Professor

    Recently, Colbourn et al questioned the use of modelling to seek alternative trial results1. They cited a radio intervention study from Burkina Faso that based on mathematical modelling suggested that the radio intervention was associated with a 7.1% reduction in under-5 mortality, whereas the actual trial results suggested no effect (Rate ratio: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.82-1.22))1. Colbourn and colleagues raised the important point that modelled estimates should not take precedence over empirical mortality data.
    We would like to support the point raised by Colbourn and colleagues with an example from the field of vaccinology.
    The phase 3 trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine found a vaccine efficacy of 18-36% against clinical malaria2. The study was not powered to assess mortality endpoints, but the results suggested that RTS,S/AS01 was associated with 24% (95% CI: -3 – 58%) higher all-cause mortality3. This was obviously not what was expected; a vaccine that reduces clinical malaria would be expected to reduce all-cause mortality. However, based on our experience, it could indicate that the vaccine, like other non-live vaccines, could have negative non-specific effects4. If that was the case, we predicted that the negative effect would be strongest in females as seen for the other non-live vaccines3. Subsequent analyses indeed revealed that RTS,S/AS01 was associated with higher mortality in girls (Relative Risk of death for RTS,S/AS01 compared with control (RR): 1.9...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.