Abstract
The findings of medical research are often met with considerable scepticism, even when they have apparently come from studies with sound methodologies that have been subjected to appropriate statistical analysis. This is perhaps particularly the case with respect to epidemiological findings that suggest that some aspect of everyday life is bad for people. Indeed, one recent popular history, the medical journalist James Le Fanu's The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine , went so far as to suggest that the solution to medicine's ills would be the closure of all departments of epidemiology.1 One contributory factor is that the medical literature shows a strong tendency to accentuate the positive; positive outcomes are more likely to be reported than null results.2–4 By this means alone a host of purely chance findings will be published, as by conventional reasoning examining 20 associations will produce one result that is “significant at P=0.05” by chance alone. If only positive findings are published then they may be mistakenly considered to be of importance rather than being the necessary chance results produced by the application of criteria for meaningfulness based on statistical significance. As many studies contain long questionnaires collecting information on hundreds of variables, and measure a wide range of potential outcomes, several false positive findings are virtually guaranteed. The high volume and often contradictory nature5 of medical research findings, however, is not only because of publication bias. A more fundamental problem is the widespread misunderstanding of the nature of statistical significance. #### Summary points P values, or significance levels, measure the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis; the smaller the P value, the stronger the evidence against the null hypothesis An arbitrary division of results, into “significant” or “non-significant” according to the P value, was not the intention of the …
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Statistical significance for genomewide studies
With the increase in genomewide experiments and the sequencing of multiple genomes, the analysis of large data sets has become commonplace in biology. It is often the case that ...
Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False: An Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies
Abstract Too many reports of associations between genetic variants and common cancer sites and other complex diseases are false positives. A major reason for this unfortunate si...
Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests
Since the x2 tests of goodness of fit and of association in contingency tables are presented in many courses on statistical methods for beginners in the subject, it is not surpr...
A Direct Approach to False Discovery Rates
Summary Multiple-hypothesis testing involves guarding against much more complicated errors than single-hypothesis testing. Whereas we typically control the type I error rate for...
Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses
In this paper, we develop a classical approach to model selection. Using the Kullback-Leibler Information Criterion to measure the closeness of a model to the truth, we propose ...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2001
- Type
- review
- Volume
- 322
- Issue
- 7280
- Pages
- 226-231
- Citations
- 1457
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.322.7280.226