Literature DB >> 20966898

P values: use and misuse in medical literature.

Hillel W Cohen1.   

Abstract

P values are widely used in the medical literature but many authors, reviewers, and readers are unfamiliar with a valid definition of a P value, let alone how to interpret one correctly. Popular explanations such as "the probability that study results are due to chance" are wrong in a variety of ways and can lead to substantial errors in evaluating the evidence from research studies. Belief that "statistical significance" can alone discriminate between truth and falsehood borders on magical thinking. The article points out how to better interpret P values by avoiding common errors. Statistical analyses and P values are important tools in evidence-based medicine, but have to be used cautiously and with better understanding.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20966898     DOI: 10.1038/ajh.2010.205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hypertens        ISSN: 0895-7061            Impact factor:   2.689


  9 in total

1.  While modern medicine evolves continuously, evidence-based research methodology remains: how register studies should be interpreted and appreciated.

Authors:  Eleonor Svantesson; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Kurt P Spindler; Olufemi R Ayeni; Freddie H Fu; Jón Karlsson; Kristian Samuelsson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  [Confidence intervals and p-values in urology: interpretation and misinterpretation].

Authors:  M Rink; L A Kluth; S F Shariat; R Dahlem; M Fisch; P Dahm
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Stature and frailty during the Black Death: the effect of stature on risks of epidemic mortality in London, A.D. 1348-1350.

Authors:  Sharon N Dewitte; Gail Hughes-Morey
Journal:  J Archaeol Sci       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 4.  Inhaled Cannabis for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data.

Authors:  Michael H Andreae; George M Carter; Naum Shaparin; Kathryn Suslov; Ronald J Ellis; Mark A Ware; Donald I Abrams; Hannah Prasad; Barth Wilsey; Debbie Indyk; Matthew Johnson; Henry S Sacks
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 5.820

5.  Nonsignificant P values cannot prove null hypothesis: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Authors:  Deepak Saxena; Preeti Yadav; N D Kantharia
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2011-07

6.  Misleading Epidemiological and Statistical Evidence in the Presence of Simpson's Paradox: An Illustrative Study Using Simulated Scenarios of Observational Study Designs.

Authors:  Chanapong Rojanaworarit
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2020 Jan-Mar

7.  Strength in numbers? The fragility index of studies from the Scandinavian knee ligament registries.

Authors:  Eleonor Svantesson; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Adam Danielsson; David Sundemo; Olof Westin; Olufemi R Ayeni; Kristian Samuelsson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Evaluation of the Use of Cancer Registry Data for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Authors:  Abhishek Kumar; Zachary D Guss; Patrick T Courtney; Vinit Nalawade; Paige Sheridan; Reith R Sarkar; Matthew P Banegas; Brent S Rose; Ronghui Xu; James D Murphy
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-07-01

9.  A Novel Individual Mentored Methodology to Peer Review for Residents/Fellows.

Authors:  Douglas E Ott
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2021 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.