The undue influence of significant p-values on the perceived importance of study results

被引:37
作者
Bhandari, M [1 ]
Montori, VM
Schemitsch, EH
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] Mayo Clin, Dept Med, Coll Med, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Univ Toronto, St Michaels Hosp, Div Orthopaed Surg, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1080/00016470510030724
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Statistically significant differences between treatments (i.e., results typically associated with p < 0.05) may not always correspond to important differences upon which to base orthopedic practice. If the hypothesis that p < 0.05 unduly influences the perception of importance of study results were true, we would expect that presenting such a p-value would lead to 1) greater agreement among clinicians about the importance of a study result, and 2) greater perceived importance of a study result, when compared with presenting the same results omitting the p-value. Methods The participants were 3 orthopedics residents, 5 fellows, and 4 attending orthopedic surgeons at a university hospital. We constructed a 40-item questionnaire with the comparison groups, primary outcome of interest, and the results from each of 40 studies. These studies represent a variety of interventions across orthopedic surgery assessed in 2-group comparative intervention studies (randomized trials, observational studies) and were published between 2000 and 2002 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. For each question, respondents were asked to rate the importance of the study results. Participants answered the questionnaire first without p-values and then, 8 weeks later, with p-values (and a random sample of items without p-values). An intra-class correlation quantified agreement between clinicians when answering items with and without p-values. The difference in mean importance scores between the two presentations was also estimated. Results Of 40 eligible clinical comparative studies, 30 reported p < 0.05 for their primary comparison. Without presenting p-values, overall agreement regarding clinical significance among reviewers was fair (ICC = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25-0.49). In the 30 studies with p < 0.05, mean importance scores (I = low; 3 = high) were greater when p-values were presented (difference 0.6, CI 0.1-1.1). 10 of 12 reviewers perceived results to be more important when presented with significant p-values. Interpretation When significant, p-values unduly influence the perception of clinicians regarding the importance of study results.
引用
收藏
页码:291 / 295
页数:5
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]   Part II. Statistical issues in the design of orthopaedic studies - Statistical sampling and hypothesis testing in orthopaedic research [J].
Bernstein, J ;
McGuire, K ;
Freedman, KB .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2003, (413) :55-62
[2]   Evidence-based orthopaedics: A paradigm shift - Comment [J].
Bhandari, M ;
Tornetta, P .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2003, (413) :9-10
[3]  
Fisher R.A., 1973, Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference, V3rd
[4]  
Guyatt Gordon, 2004, ACP J Club, V140, pA11
[5]   MEASUREMENT OF OBSERVER AGREEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL DATA [J].
LANDIS, JR ;
KOCH, GG .
BIOMETRICS, 1977, 33 (01) :159-174
[6]   Type-II error rates (beta errors) of randomized trials in orthopaedic trauma [J].
Lochner, HV ;
Bhandari, M ;
Tornetta, P .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2001, 83A (11) :1650-1655
[7]  
LUUS HG, 1989, S AFR MED J, V76, P626
[8]  
Narayanan UG, 2002, J PEDIATR ORTHOPED, V22, P277
[10]   Improving interpretation of clinical studies by use of confidence levels, clinical significance curves, and risk-benefit contours [J].
Shakespeare, TP ;
Gebski, VJ ;
Veness, MJ ;
Simes, J .
LANCET, 2001, 357 (9265) :1349-1353