Suppr超能文献

辛普森悖论与实验研究。

Simpson's paradox and experimental research.

作者信息

Ameringer Suzanne, Serlin Ronald C, Ward Sandra

机构信息

Virginia Commonwealth University, 1100 East Leigh Street, Richmond, VA 23219, USA.

出版信息

Nurs Res. 2009 Mar-Apr;58(2):123-7. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e318199b517.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Experimental research in nursing has increased considerably in recent years. To improve the quality of such research, it is critical to reduce threats to internal validity. One threat that has received inadequate attention in the nursing literature is Simpson's paradox--a case of extreme confounding that can lead to erroneous conclusions about the effects of an experimental intervention. In fact, it can lead to a conclusion about an intervention effect that is the opposite of the correct inference.

APPROACH

The aims of this study were to describe Simpson's paradox, provide a hypothetical example, and discuss approaches to avoiding the paradox.

RESULTS

The paradox is due to the combination of an overlooked confounding variable and a disproportionate allocation of that variable among experimental groups. Different designs and analysis approaches that can be used to avoid the paradox are presented.

DISCUSSION

Simpson's paradox can be avoided by selecting an appropriate experimental design and analysis that incorporates the confounding variable in such a way as to obtain unconfounded estimates of treatment effects, thus more accurately answering the research question.

摘要

背景

近年来,护理领域的实验研究有了显著增加。为提高此类研究的质量,减少对内部效度的威胁至关重要。护理文献中未得到充分关注的一个威胁是辛普森悖论——一种极端的混杂情况,可能导致关于实验干预效果的错误结论。事实上,它可能导致得出与正确推断相反的干预效果结论。

方法

本研究的目的是描述辛普森悖论,提供一个假设示例,并讨论避免该悖论的方法。

结果

该悖论是由于一个被忽视的混杂变量与该变量在实验组之间的不均衡分配共同作用所致。文中介绍了可用于避免该悖论的不同设计和分析方法。

讨论

通过选择合适的实验设计和分析方法,将混杂变量纳入其中以获得无偏倚的治疗效果估计,从而更准确地回答研究问题,就可以避免辛普森悖论。

相似文献

1
Simpson's paradox and experimental research.
Nurs Res. 2009 Mar-Apr;58(2):123-7. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e318199b517.
2
The Simpson's paradox unraveled.
Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;40(3):780-5. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr041. Epub 2011 Mar 30.
4
Understanding research: 2. Ensuring reliability and validity.
J Wound Care. 2001 Sep;10(8):329-31. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.8.26116.
5
Simpson's Paradox is suppression, but Lord's Paradox is neither: clarification of and correction to Tu, Gunnell, and Gilthorpe (2008).
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2019 Nov 27;16:5. doi: 10.1186/s12982-019-0087-0. eCollection 2019.
7
Simpson's paradox visualized: the example of the rosiglitazone meta-analysis.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 May 30;8:34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-34.
8
The nature of truth: Simpson's Paradox and the limits of statistical data.
QJM. 2002 Apr;95(4):247-9. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/95.4.247.
9
Simpson's paradox in psychological science: a practical guide.
Front Psychol. 2013 Aug 12;4:513. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00513. eCollection 2013.
10
Impact of unreliability of measurements on statistical conclusion validity.
J Nurs Meas. 2005 Fall;13(2):83-5. doi: 10.1891/jnum.2005.13.2.83.

引用本文的文献

2
Endocrine gland size is proportional to its target tissue size.
iScience. 2024 Jul 31;27(9):110625. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.110625. eCollection 2024 Sep 20.
3
Brain age as a biomarker for pathological versus healthy ageing - a REMEMBER study.
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2024 Jun 14;16(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13195-024-01491-y.
4
The prognostic role of diet quality in patients with MAFLD and physical activity: data from NHANES.
Nutr Diabetes. 2024 Feb 23;14(1):4. doi: 10.1038/s41387-024-00261-x.
5
A Review on Metabolic Paradoxes and their Impact on Metabolism.
Arch Razi Inst. 2022 Jun 30;77(3):929-941. doi: 10.22092/ARI.2021.356277.1815. eCollection 2022 Jun.
6
Decision Curve Analysis for Personalized Treatment Choice between Multiple Options.
Med Decis Making. 2023 Apr;43(3):337-349. doi: 10.1177/0272989X221143058. Epub 2022 Dec 13.
9
Lessons from Randomised Clinical Trials for Triiodothyronine Treatment of Hypothyroidism: Have They Achieved Their Objectives?
J Thyroid Res. 2018 Jul 16;2018:3239197. doi: 10.1155/2018/3239197. eCollection 2018.

本文引用的文献

1
Simpson's paradox visualized: the example of the rosiglitazone meta-analysis.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 May 30;8:34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-34.
2
Statistics and death from meningococcal disease in children.
BMJ. 2006 Jun 3;332(7553):1297-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7553.1297.
3
Sex differences in adolescent chronic pain and pain-related coping.
Pain. 2006 Aug;123(3):275-284. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.03.004. Epub 2006 Apr 27.
6
On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.
Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):19-40. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19.
7
The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.
Ann Intern Med. 2001 Apr 17;134(8):663-94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012.
8
Simpson's paradox: an example from hospital epidemiology.
Epidemiology. 2000 Jan;11(1):81-3. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200001000-00017.
10
Strengthening experimental design by balancing potentially confounding variables across treatment groups.
Nurs Res. 1997 Nov-Dec;46(6):345-9. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199711000-00009.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验