Skip to main content
Fig. 3 | Trials

Fig. 3

From: A comparison of approaches for adjudicating outcomes in clinical trials

Fig. 3

Increase in bias from two-stage adjudication approach compared with central assessment. This graph shows the increase in bias from using a two-stage approach (where central assessors adjudicate only suspected events) compared with having one central assessor adjudicate all events and is based on a scenario where the central assessor has better classification rates than the site assessor in general; the false-positive and false-negative rates for the central assessor are 1%, and the false-positive rate for the site assessor is 10%. The false-negative rate for the site assessor is shown on the x-axis

Back to article page