Literature DB >> 23511856

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

M Rink1, L A Kluth, S F Shariat, R Dahlem, M Fisch, P Dahm.   

Abstract

Confidence intervals and p-values are widely used in the urological literature to describe and interpret outcomes. However, several readers, authors and reviewers are unfamiliar with the true interpretation of these values. P-values determine statistical significance of data. Confidence intervals characterize a range of values in which the true effect size is suggested to be with a given degree of certainty. An independent but complementary interpretation of both values is important in studies with and without statistical significance. Based on a clinical case scenario this article discusses the interpretation as well as common pitfalls in interpretation of p-values and confidence intervals. An accurate assessment of these statistical cornerstones is fundamental for a correct interpretation of the urological literature and thus important aspects of evidence-based urology.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23511856     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-013-3148-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  8 in total

Review 1.  P values: use and misuse in medical literature.

Authors:  Hillel W Cohen
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 2.689

2.  Evidence-based urology in practice: P-values vs confidence intervals.

Authors:  Susan L MacDonald; Charles D Scales; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-07-05       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Inadequate statistical power of negative clinical trials in urological literature.

Authors:  Rodney H Breau; Toby A Carnat; Isabelle Gaboury
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  Clinical versus statistical significance: interpreting P values and confidence intervals related to measures of association to guide decision making.

Authors:  Mary J Ferrill; Dana A Brown; Jeffrey A Kyle
Journal:  J Pharm Pract       Date:  2010-04-13

5.  Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing.

Authors:  M J Gardner; D G Altman
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-03-15

6.  Does tamsulosin enhance lower ureteral stone clearance with or without shock wave lithotripsy?

Authors:  Bora Küpeli; Lokman Irkilata; Serhat Gürocak; Lütfi Tunç; Mustafa Kiraç; Ustünol Karaoğlan; Ibrahim Bozkirli
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 7.  Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; Mary A M Rogers; Samuel R Kaufman; Timothy J Bradford; Sanjay Saint; John T Wei; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-09-30       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  Statistical reasoning in clinical trials: hypothesis testing.

Authors:  G D Kelen; C G Brown; J Ashton
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 2.469

  8 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  [Kaplan-Meier analysis in urological practice].

Authors:  M Rink; L A Kluth; S F Shariat; M Fisch; R Dahlem; P Dahm
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 0.639

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.