Literature DB >> 2254764

Indexes and boundaries for "quantitative significance" in statistical decisions.

B Burnand1, W N Kernan, A R Feinstein.   

Abstract

Boundaries for delta, representing a "quantitatively significant" or "substantively impressive" distinction, have not been established, analogous to the boundary of alpha, usually set at 0.05, for the stochastic or probabilistic component of "statistical significance". To determine what boundaries are being used for the "quantitative" decisions, we reviewed pertinent articles in three general medical journals. For each contrast of two means, contrast of two rates, or correlation coefficient, we noted the investigators' decisions about stochastic significance, stated in P values or confidence intervals, and about quantitative significance, indicated by interpretive comments. The boundaries between impressive and unimpressive distinctions were best formed by a ratio of greater than or equal to 1.2 for the smaller to the larger mean in 546 comparisons, by a standardized increment of greater than or equal to 0.28 and odds ratio of greater than or equal to 2.2 in 392 comparisons of two rates; and by an r value of greater than or equal to 0.32 in 154 correlation coefficients. Additional boundaries were also identified for "substantially" and "highly" significant quantitative distinctions. Although the proposed boundaries should be kept flexible, indexes and boundaries for decisions about "quantitative significance" are particularly useful when a value of delta must be chosen for calculating sample size before the research is done, and when the "statistical significance" of completed research is appraised for its quantitative as well as stochastic components.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2254764     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90093-5

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


  51 in total

1.  Sample size estimation for the sorcerer's apprentice. Guide for the uninitiated and intimidated.

Authors:  J G Ray; M J Vermeulen
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 2.  Statistical versus quantitative significance in the socioeconomic evaluation of medicines.

Authors:  B J O'Brien; M F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Causality in cancer epidemiology.

Authors:  Pagona Lagiou; Hans-Olov Adami; Dimitrios Trichopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  The content and construct validity of the modified patient specific functional scale (PSFS 2.0) in individuals with neck pain.

Authors:  Marloes Thoomes-de Graaf; César Fernández-De-Las-Peñas; Joshua A Cleland
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2019-05-26

5.  Utility-based Quality of Life measures in Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Gary Naglie; George Tomlinson; Catherine Tansey; Jane Irvine; Paul Ritvo; Sandra E Black; Morris Freedman; Michel Silberfeld; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Sample sizes for randomized trials measuring quality of life in cancer patients.

Authors:  S A Julious; S George; D Machin; R J Stephens
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Refinement and psychometric evaluation of the impact of cancer scale.

Authors:  Catherine M Crespi; Patricia A Ganz; Laura Petersen; Adrienne Castillo; Bette Caan
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-10-28       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Accuracy of recall in quality-of-life assessment among women operated on for stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Annick Larochelle; John Podoba; Stéphane Ouellet; William D Fraser
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-06-10

9.  Psychometric evaluation of the Impact of Cancer (IOC-CS) scale for young adult survivors of childhood cancer.

Authors:  Brad J Zebrack; Janet E Donohue; James G Gurney; Mark A Chesler; Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Measuring the impact of cancer: a comparison of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Catherine M Crespi; Sophia K Smith; Laura Petersen; Sheryl Zimmerman; Patricia A Ganz
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2009-12-06       Impact factor: 4.442

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.