Connor Jason T
Department of Statistics and H.J. Heinz III School of Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Sep;99(9):1638-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.40592.x.
As is common in current biomedical research, about 85% of original contributions in The American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2004 have reported p-values. However, none are reported in this issue's article by Abraham et al. who, instead, rely exclusively on effect size estimates and associated confidence intervals to summarize their findings. Authors using confidence intervals communicate much more information in a clear and efficient manner than those using p-values. This strategy also prevents readers from drawing erroneous conclusions caused by common misunderstandings about p-values. I outline how standard, two-sided confidence intervals can be used to measure whether two treatments differ or test whether they are clinically equivalent.
正如当前生物医学研究中的常见情况一样,2004年《美国胃肠病学杂志》上约85%的原创性论文都报告了p值。然而,亚伯拉罕等人在本期发表的文章中并未报告p值,而是完全依靠效应量估计值和相关的置信区间来总结他们的研究结果。使用置信区间的作者比使用p值的作者能以更清晰、更有效的方式传达更多信息。这种策略还能防止读者因对p值的常见误解而得出错误结论。我将概述如何使用标准的双侧置信区间来衡量两种治疗方法是否存在差异,或检验它们在临床上是否等效。