{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03303964757709251, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01762114537444934, 'mean_word_length': 5.097315436241611, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comment on: Effectiveness of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for symptomatic uterine fibroids: a multicenter study in China

We read with great interest the paper entitled “Effectiveness of Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Microwave Ablation for Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids: A Multicenter Study in China” that was published in International Journal of Hyperthermia in November 2016 [1]. The authors aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation therapy (PMWA) for symptomatic uterine fibroids in a multicenter study. We appreciate author’s efforts, but a statistical issue should be considered when interpreting their results. The authors used independent t tests to determine differences in fibroid volumes, haemoglobin levels, and UFS-QOL score parameters between baseline and each post treatment time point, at 3, 6 and 12months. Here, they used independent t tests for repeated measures and have done multiple comparisons. The Type I error rate (alpha) may be inflated (alpha inflation) by analysing the same data more than once. Unfortunately the problem of alpha inflation is a frequently ignored in medical statistics. The common way to deal with this kind of problem is to adjust the Type I error rate below .05, using Bonferroni adjustment. The Bonferroni adjusted level of alpha calculated by: Adjusted alpha1⁄4 alpha/no. of test. In this study, authors carry out three comparisons for each parameter; therefore an adjusted alpha for this study is 0.05/31⁄4 0.016. The null hypothesis should be rejected when p< .016, instead of .05. This approach can ensure that the overall chance of making Type I error is less than .05 [2]. To deal with dependency between observations within subjects, a One-way Repeated Measure ANOVA is recommended [3].