TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “Rationale and design of the Study To Understand Fall Reduction and Vitamin D in You (STURDY)
T2 - A randomized clinical trial of Vitamin D supplement doses for the prevention of falls in older adults” [Contemp Clin Trials. 73 (2018) 111–122] (Contemporary Clinical Trials (2018) 73 (111–122), (S1551714418303161), (10.1016/j.cct.2018.08.004))
AU - STURDY Collaborative Research Group
AU - Michos, Erin D.
AU - Mitchell, Christine M.
AU - Miller, Edgar R.
AU - Sternberg, Alice L.
AU - Juraschek, Stephen P.
AU - Schrack, Jennifer A.
AU - Szanton, Sarah L.
AU - Walston, Jeremy D.
AU - Kalyani, Rita R.
AU - Plante, Timothy B.
AU - Christenson, Robert H.
AU - Shade, Dave
AU - Tonascia, James
AU - Roth, David L.
AU - Appel, Lawrence J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2020/3
Y1 - 2020/3
N2 - We have identified two errors in our article: 1) Misstatement of the primary analysis plan: the primary analysis plan is the intention-to-treat comparison of the pooled non-control doses group versus control with time to primary outcome measured from randomization for all participants, not the analysis which compares experience on best dose versus control dose. The primary analysis was stated correctly in our statistical analysis plan developed at the start of the trial. Importantly, this correction is not a protocol change; rather, the description of primary analysis in the design paper incorrectly stated what we had pre-specified in our statistical analysis plan.2) Inconsistent use of the term “best dose”: the “best dose” is the non-control dose identified during dose-finding stage as best at preventing the primary outcome; in some sentences, “best dose” was used incorrectly to denote the pooled non-control doses group.We regret the confusion caused by our errors.
AB - We have identified two errors in our article: 1) Misstatement of the primary analysis plan: the primary analysis plan is the intention-to-treat comparison of the pooled non-control doses group versus control with time to primary outcome measured from randomization for all participants, not the analysis which compares experience on best dose versus control dose. The primary analysis was stated correctly in our statistical analysis plan developed at the start of the trial. Importantly, this correction is not a protocol change; rather, the description of primary analysis in the design paper incorrectly stated what we had pre-specified in our statistical analysis plan.2) Inconsistent use of the term “best dose”: the “best dose” is the non-control dose identified during dose-finding stage as best at preventing the primary outcome; in some sentences, “best dose” was used incorrectly to denote the pooled non-control doses group.We regret the confusion caused by our errors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078487361&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85078487361&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105936
DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105936
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 32001213
AN - SCOPUS:85078487361
SN - 1551-7144
VL - 90
JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials
JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials
M1 - 105936
ER -