Literature DB >> 3573245

Are all significant P values created equal? The analogy between diagnostic tests and clinical research.

W S Browner, T B Newman.   

Abstract

Just as diagnostic tests are most helpful in light of the clinical presentation, statistical tests are most useful in the context of scientific knowledge. Knowing the specificity and sensitivity of a diagnostic test is necessary, but insufficient: the clinician must also estimate the prior probability of the disease. In the same way, knowing the P value and power, or the confidence interval, for the results of a research study is necessary but insufficient: the reader must estimate the prior probability that the research hypothesis is true. Just as a positive diagnostic test does not mean that a patient has the disease, especially if the clinical picture suggests otherwise, a significant P value does not mean that a research hypothesis is correct, especially if it is inconsistent with current knowledge. Powerful studies are like sensitive tests in that they can be especially useful when the results are negative. Very low P values are like very specific tests; both result in few false-positive results due to chance. This Bayesian approach can clarify much of the confusion surrounding the use and interpretation of statistical tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3573245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  28 in total

Review 1.  Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests?

Authors:  J A Sterne; G Davey Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-27

2.  Decision support and safety of clinical environments.

Authors:  A H Morris
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-03

3.  Effects of the multiple risk factor intervention trial smoking cessation program on pulmonary function. A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  W S Browner; A G Du Chene; S B Hulley
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1992-11

4.  Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies.

Authors:  Sholom Wacholder; Stephen Chanock; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Laure El Ghormli; Nathaniel Rothman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Likelihood ratio meta-analysis: New motivation and approach for an old method.

Authors:  Colin R Dormuth; Kristian B Filion; Robert W Platt
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 6.  Is there a hierarchy of methods in clinical research?

Authors:  J P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Klin Wochenschr       Date:  1989-05-15

7.  Pharmacogenetics of anti-resorptive therapy efficacy: a Bayesian interpretation.

Authors:  Tuan V Nguyen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Interpreting trial results in light of conflicting evidence: a Bayesian analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca A Miksad; Mithat Gönen; Thomas J Lynch; Thomas G Roberts
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-03-23       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  How many patients with severe sepsis are needed to confirm the efficacy of drotrecogin alfa activated? A Bayesian design.

Authors:  Andre C Kalil; Junfeng Sun
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Significance testing as perverse probabilistic reasoning.

Authors:  M Brandon Westover; Kenneth D Westover; Matt T Bianchi
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2011-02-28       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.