Statistical Significance and the Dichotomization of Evidence: The Relevance of the for Statisticians.
作者信息
Laber Eric B, Shedden Kerby
机构信息
Department of Statistics, NC State University.
Department of Statistics, University of Michigan.
出版信息
J Am Stat Assoc. 2017;112(519):902-904. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1311265. Epub 2017 Oct 30.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Statistical Significance and the Dichotomization of Evidence: The Relevance of the for Statisticians.统计显著性与证据的二分法：对统计学家的相关性。
J Am Stat Assoc. 2017;112(519):902-904. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1311265. Epub 2017 Oct 30.
2
Misconceptions, Misuses, and Misinterpretations of P Values and Significance Testing.对 P 值和显著性检验的误解、误用和曲解。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Sep 20;99(18):1598-1603. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.01314.
3
Good Statistical Practice-development of tailored Good Clinical Practice training for statisticians.良好统计实践——为统计人员量身定制良好临床实践培训的发展。
Trials. 2024 Feb 10;25(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-07940-1.
4
How to Use and Report on -values.如何使用和报告 -values。
Perspect Med Educ. 2024 Apr 26;13(1):250-254. doi: 10.5334/pme.1324. eCollection 2024.
5
The continuing misuse of null hypothesis significance testing in biological anthropology.生物人类学中持续存在的对零假设显著性检验的误用。
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2018 May;166(1):236-245. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23399. Epub 2018 Jan 18.
6
Statistical significance versus clinical relevance.统计学意义与临床意义。
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017 Apr 1;32(suppl_2):ii6-ii12. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfw385.
7
Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology.在从事统计学和流行病学研究的研究人员和专业人员中，对 P 值和统计检验的误解仍然存在。
Ups J Med Sci. 2022 Aug 4;127. doi: 10.48101/ujms.v127.8760. eCollection 2022.
8
Fresh stirrings among statisticians: statistical commentary.统计学家之间新的动向：统计评论
Aust Orthod J. 2016 May;32(1):109-12.
9
Moving Beyond p < 0.05 in Ecotoxicology: A Guide for Practitioners.超越生态毒理学中的 p < 0.05：从业者指南。
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2020 Sep;39(9):1657-1669. doi: 10.1002/etc.4800.
10
On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.关于定量变量的二分法实践。
Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):19-40. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19.
引用本文的文献
1
The total joint arthroplasty care patterns in China during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multicenter cohort study.中国在 COVID-19 大流行期间的全关节置换术护理模式：一项多中心队列研究。
Front Public Health. 2024 Oct 15;12:1357984. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1357984. eCollection 2024.
2
For a proper use of frequentist inferential statistics in public health.关于在公共卫生中正确使用频率学派推断统计学。
Glob Epidemiol. 2024 Jun 15;8:100151. doi: 10.1016/j.gloepi.2024.100151. eCollection 2024 Dec.
3
How to Use and Report on -values.如何使用和报告 -values。
Perspect Med Educ. 2024 Apr 26;13(1):250-254. doi: 10.5334/pme.1324. eCollection 2024.
4
Evidence for Infant-directed Speech Preference Is Consistent Across Large-scale, Multi-site Replication and Meta-analysis.婴儿导向性言语偏好的证据在大规模、多地点重复研究和荟萃分析中保持一致。
Open Mind (Camb). 2024 Apr 3;8:439-461. doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00134. eCollection 2024.
5
Assessing robustness to worst case publication bias using a simple subset meta-analysis.使用简单的子群荟萃分析评估对最坏情况发表偏倚的稳健性。
BMJ. 2024 Mar 15;384:e076851. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076851.
6
Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research.区分当代比较有效性研究中的临床意义和统计学意义。
Ann Surg. 2024 Jun 1;279(6):907-912. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006250. Epub 2024 Feb 23.
7
P-hacking in meta-analyses: A formalization and new meta-analytic methods.元分析中的 P-值操纵：形式化与新的元分析方法。
Res Synth Methods. 2024 May;15(3):483-499. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1701. Epub 2024 Jan 25.
8
The Continuous Fragility Index of Statistically Significant Findings in Randomized Controlled Trials That Compare Interventions for Anterior Shoulder Instability.随机对照试验中比较前肩不稳干预措施的统计学显著发现的连续脆弱指数。
Am J Sports Med. 2024 Aug;52(10):2667-2675. doi: 10.1177/03635465231202522. Epub 2024 Jan 23.
9
The Fragility of Landmark Randomized Controlled Trials in the Plastic Surgery Literature.整形外科学术文献中标志性随机对照试验的脆弱性
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024 Jan 17;12(1):e5352. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005352. eCollection 2024 Jan.
10
Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials.解读随机对照试验
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Sep 22;15(19):4674. doi: 10.3390/cancers15194674.
本文引用的文献
1
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates.聚类失效：为何功能磁共振成像在空间范围推断上存在过高的假阳性率。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jul 12;113(28):7900-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1602413113. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
2
Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.用于验证性假设检验的随机效应结构：保持其最大化。
J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3). doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
3
Are treatments more effective than placebos? A systematic review and meta-analysis.治疗方法比安慰剂更有效吗？系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2013 May 15;8(5):e62599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062599. Print 2013.
4
Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data.解决高通量数据中广泛存在且极具影响力的批次效应问题。
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Oct;11(10):733-9. doi: 10.1038/nrg2825. Epub 2010 Sep 14.
5
Confounding from cryptic relatedness in case-control association studies.病例对照关联研究中隐秘亲缘关系导致的混杂因素。
PLoS Genet. 2005 Sep;1(3):e32. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0010032.
Zotero 插件