• Br J Anaesth · Jan 2024

    Review

    Statistically significant differences versus convincing evidence of real treatment effects: an analysis of the false positive risk for single-centre trials in anaesthesia.

    • David Sidebotham, Felicity Dominick, Carolyn Deng, Jake Barlow, and Philip M Jones.
    • Department of Cardiothoracic and ORL Anaesthesia, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand; Cardiothoracic and Vascular Intensive Care Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand; Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: dsidebotham@adhb.govt.nz.
    • Br J Anaesth. 2024 Jan 1; 132 (1): 116123116-123.

    BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFor 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%).ConclusionsOur 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.Clinical Trial RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42023350783).Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.