التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Statistically significant differences versus convincing evidence of real treatment effects: an analysis of the false positive risk for single-centre trials in anaesthesia. |
| المؤلفون: |
Sidebotham, David1,2,3 (AUTHOR) dsidebotham@adhb.govt.nz, Dominick, Felicity1 (AUTHOR), Deng, Carolyn3,4 (AUTHOR), Barlow, Jake1,2 (AUTHOR), Jones, Philip M.5 (AUTHOR) |
| المصدر: |
BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia. Jan2024, Vol. 132 Issue 1, p116-123. 8p. |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
*TREATMENT effectiveness, *ANESTHESIA, *NULL hypothesis, *BAYES' theorem, *CRIME & the press |
| الشركة/الكيان: |
AMERICAN Statistical Association 070110986 |
| مستخلص: |
The American Statistical Association has highlighted problems with null hypothesis significance testing and outlined alternative approaches that may 'supplement or even replace P -values'. One alternative is to report the false positive risk (FPR), which quantifies the chance the null hypothesis is true when the result is statistically significant. We reviewed single-centre, randomised trials in 10 anaesthesia journals over 6 yr where differences in a primary binary outcome were statistically significant. We calculated a Bayes factor by two methods (Gunel, Kass). From the Bayes factor we calculated the FPR for different prior beliefs for a real treatment effect. Prior beliefs were quantified by assigning pretest probabilities to the null and alternative hypotheses. For equal pretest probabilities of 0.5, the median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) FPR was 6% (1–22%) by the Gunel method and 6% (1–19%) by the Kass method. One in five trials had an FPR ≥20%. For trials reporting P -values 0.01–0.05, the median (IQR) FPR was 25% (16–30%) by the Gunel method and 20% (16–25%) by the Kass method. More than 90% of trials reporting P -values 0.01–0.05 required a pretest probability >0.5 to achieve an FPR of 5%. The median (IQR) difference in the FPR calculated by the two methods was 0% (0–2%). Our findings suggest that a substantial proportion of single-centre trials in anaesthesia reporting statistically significant differences provide limited evidence of real treatment effects, or, alternatively, required an implausibly high prior belief in a real treatment effect. PROSPERO (CRD42023350783). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Academic Search Index |
