Literature DB >> 19398295

The Bayesian interpretation of a P-value depends only weakly on statistical power in realistic situations.

Richard Hooper1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: It is often repeated that a low P-value provides more persuasive evidence for a genuine effect if the power of the test is high. However, this is based on an argument which ignores the precise P-value in favor of simply observing whether P is less than some cut-off, and which oversimplifies the possible effect sizes. In a non-Bayesian framework, there are good reasons to think that power does not affect the evidence of a given P-value. Here I illustrate the relationship between pre-study power and the Bayesian interpretation of a P-value in realistic situations. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: A Bayesian calculation, using a conventional prior distribution for the effect size and a normal approximation to the sampling distribution of the sample estimate, where the datum is the precise P-value.
RESULTS: Over the range of pre-study powers typical in published research, the Bayesian interpretation of a given P-value varies little with power.
CONCLUSION: A Bayesian analysis with reasonable assumptions produces results remarkably in line with a more simple, non-Bayesian intuition-that the evidence against the null hypothesis provided by a precise P-value should not depend on power.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19398295     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  5 in total

1.  3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT.

Authors:  Timothy Iveson; Kathleen A Boyd; Rachel S Kerr; Jose Robles-Zurita; Mark P Saunders; Andrew H Briggs; Jim Cassidy; Niels Henrik Hollander; Josep Tabernero; Andrew Haydon; Bengt Glimelius; Andrea Harkin; Karen Allan; John McQueen; Sarah Pearson; Ashita Waterston; Louise Medley; Charles Wilson; Richard Ellis; Sharadah Essapen; Amandeep S Dhadda; Mark Harrison; Stephen Falk; Sherif Raouf; Charlotte Rees; Rene K Olesen; David Propper; John Bridgewater; Ashraf Azzabi; David Farrugia; Andrew Webb; David Cunningham; Tamas Hickish; Andrew Weaver; Simon Gollins; Harpreet Wasan; James Paul
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  A nomogram for P values.

Authors:  Leonhard Held
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of p-values.

Authors:  David Colquhoun
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 2.963

4.  The Heuristic Value of p in Inductive Statistical Inference.

Authors:  Joachim I Krueger; Patrick R Heck
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-06-09

5.  3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for colorectal cancer (SCOT): an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Timothy J Iveson; Rachel S Kerr; Mark P Saunders; Jim Cassidy; Niels Henrik Hollander; Josep Tabernero; Andrew Haydon; Bengt Glimelius; Andrea Harkin; Karen Allan; John McQueen; Claire Scudder; Kathleen Anne Boyd; Andrew Briggs; Ashita Waterston; Louise Medley; Charles Wilson; Richard Ellis; Sharadah Essapen; Amandeep S Dhadda; Mark Harrison; Stephen Falk; Sherif Raouf; Charlotte Rees; Rene K Olesen; David Propper; John Bridgewater; Ashraf Azzabi; David Farrugia; Andrew Webb; David Cunningham; Tamas Hickish; Andrew Weaver; Simon Gollins; Harpreet S Wasan; James Paul
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 41.316

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.