Literature DB >> 22391267

Nonsignificance plus high power does not imply support for the null over the alternative.

Sander Greenland1.   

Abstract

This article summarizes arguments against the use of power to analyze data, and illustrates a key pitfall: Lack of statistical significance (e.g., p > .05) combined with high power (e.g., 90%) can occur even if the data support the alternative more than the null. This problem arises via selective choice of parameters at which power is calculated, but can also arise if one computes power at a prespecified alternative. As noted by earlier authors, power computed using sample estimates ("observed power") replaces this problem with even more counterintuitive behavior, because observed power effectively double counts the data and increases as the P value declines. Use of power to analyze and interpret data thus needs more extensive discouragement.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22391267     DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2012.02.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Epidemiol        ISSN: 1047-2797            Impact factor:   3.797


  18 in total

1.  The researcher and the consultant: a dialogue on null hypothesis significance testing.

Authors:  Andreas Stang; Charles Poole
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  For and Against Methodologies: Some Perspectives on Recent Causal and Statistical Inference Debates.

Authors:  Sander Greenland
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Unraveling the Relation Between Reading Comprehension and Print Exposure.

Authors:  Florina Erbeli; Elsje van Bergen; Sara A Hart
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2019-11-15

4.  Design analysis indicates Potential overestimation of treatment effects in randomized controlled trials supporting Food and Drug Administration cancer drug approvals.

Authors:  Emily M Lord; Isabelle R Weir; Ludovic Trinquart
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Sander Greenland; Mark A Hlatky; Muin J Khoury; Malcolm R Macleod; David Moher; Kenneth F Schulz; Robert Tibshirani
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Gary S Collins; Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen; Maryam Nazemipour; Nicholas P Jewell; Douglas G Altman; Michael J Campbell
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 18.473

7.  Powering Bias and Clinically Important Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials of Critical Illness.

Authors:  Darryl Abrams; Sydney B Montesi; Sarah K L Moore; Daniel K Manson; Kaitlin M Klipper; Meredith A Case; Daniel Brodie; Jeremy R Beitler
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 9.296

8.  Impact of Xpert MTB/RIF on Antiretroviral Therapy-Associated Tuberculosis and Mortality: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  L Mupfumi; B Makamure; M Chirehwa; T Sagonda; S Zinyowera; P Mason; J Z Metcalfe; R Mutetwa
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.835

9.  Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations.

Authors:  Sander Greenland; Stephen J Senn; Kenneth J Rothman; John B Carlin; Charles Poole; Steven N Goodman; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 10.  Interpretation of CIs in clinical trials with non-significant results: systematic review and recommendations.

Authors:  Jennifer S Gewandter; Michael P McDermott; Rachel A Kitt; Jenna Chaudari; James G Koch; Scott R Evans; Robert A Gross; John D Markman; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.