Suppr超能文献

手部文献中的II型(β)错误:检验效能的重要性。

Type II (beta) errors in the hand literature: the importance of power.

作者信息

Chung K C, Kalliainen L K, Hayward R A

机构信息

Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor 48109-0340, USA.

出版信息

J Hand Surg Am. 1998 Jan;23(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80083-X.

Abstract

When a study concludes that there is no difference between 2 treatments ("negative studies"), it is essential to determine whether the study has sufficient power to find a clinically significant difference. Insufficient power precludes an adequate assessment of therapeutic efficacy and may result in a type II error, an erroneous conclusion that the null hypothesis is correct. In evaluating 39 studies that highlighted negative findings in The Journal of Hand Surgery, we found that 32 (82%) papers had a power of less than .80 to detect a 25% treatment effect and, when the treatment effect was increased to 50%, more than one half of the studies still had a power of 0.80. These "negative studies" frequently have inadequate statistical power to support their conclusions. These findings have important implications for researchers, editors, and readers.

摘要

当一项研究得出两种治疗方法之间没有差异的结论(“阴性研究”)时,确定该研究是否有足够的检验效能来发现具有临床意义的差异至关重要。检验效能不足会妨碍对治疗效果进行充分评估,并可能导致II型错误,即错误地得出原假设正确的结论。在评估发表于《手外科杂志》上的39项突出阴性结果的研究时,我们发现32篇(82%)论文检测25%治疗效果的检验效能低于0.80,当治疗效果提高到50%时,超过一半的研究检验效能仍为0.80。这些“阴性研究”往往缺乏足够的统计检验效能来支持其结论。这些发现对研究人员、编辑和读者具有重要意义。

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