Interpreting frequentist hypothesis tests : insights from Bayesian inference
© 2023. The Author(s)..
Randomized controlled trials are one of the best ways of quantifying the effectiveness of medical interventions. Therefore, when the authors of a randomized superiority trial report that differences in the primary outcome between the intervention group and the control group are "significant" (i.e., P ≤ 0.05), we might assume that the intervention has an effect on the outcome. Similarly, when differences between the groups are "not significant," we might assume that the intervention does not have an effect on the outcome. Nevertheless, both assumptions are frequently incorrect.In this article, we explore the relationship that exists between real treatment effects and declarations of statistical significance based on P values and confidence intervals. We explain why, in some circumstances, the chance an intervention is ineffective when P ≤ 0.05 exceeds 25% and the chance an intervention is effective when P > 0.05 exceeds 50%.Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in Bayesian methods as an alternative to frequentist hypothesis testing. We provide a robust but nontechnical introduction to Bayesian inference and explain why a Bayesian posterior distribution overcomes many of the problems associated with frequentist hypothesis testing.Notwithstanding the current interest in Bayesian methods, frequentist hypothesis testing remains the default method for statistical inference in medical research. Therefore, we propose an interim solution to the "significance problem" based on simplified Bayesian metrics (e.g., Bayes factor, false positive risk) that can be reported along with traditional P values and confidence intervals. We calculate these metrics for four well-known multicentre trials. We provide links to online calculators so readers can easily estimate these metrics for published trials. In this way, we hope decisions on incorporating the results of randomized trials into clinical practice can be enhanced, minimizing the chance that useful treatments are discarded or that ineffective treatments are adopted.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:70 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie - 70(2023), 10 vom: 25. Okt., Seite 1560-1575 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Weiterer Titel: |
Interprétation des tests d’hypothèses fréquentistes : des enseignements tirés de l’inférence bayésienne |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Sidebotham, David [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Bayes’ theorem |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 27.10.2023 Date Revised 26.12.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1007/s12630-023-02557-5 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM36287977X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM36287977X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231229123900.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s12630-023-02557-5 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1240.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM36287977X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37794259 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Sidebotham, David |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Interpreting frequentist hypothesis tests |b insights from Bayesian inference |
| 246 | 3 | 3 | |a Interprétation des tests d’hypothèses fréquentistes : des enseignements tirés de l’inférence bayésienne |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 27.10.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 26.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023. The Author(s). | ||
| 520 | |a Randomized controlled trials are one of the best ways of quantifying the effectiveness of medical interventions. Therefore, when the authors of a randomized superiority trial report that differences in the primary outcome between the intervention group and the control group are "significant" (i.e., P ≤ 0.05), we might assume that the intervention has an effect on the outcome. Similarly, when differences between the groups are "not significant," we might assume that the intervention does not have an effect on the outcome. Nevertheless, both assumptions are frequently incorrect.In this article, we explore the relationship that exists between real treatment effects and declarations of statistical significance based on P values and confidence intervals. We explain why, in some circumstances, the chance an intervention is ineffective when P ≤ 0.05 exceeds 25% and the chance an intervention is effective when P > 0.05 exceeds 50%.Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in Bayesian methods as an alternative to frequentist hypothesis testing. We provide a robust but nontechnical introduction to Bayesian inference and explain why a Bayesian posterior distribution overcomes many of the problems associated with frequentist hypothesis testing.Notwithstanding the current interest in Bayesian methods, frequentist hypothesis testing remains the default method for statistical inference in medical research. Therefore, we propose an interim solution to the "significance problem" based on simplified Bayesian metrics (e.g., Bayes factor, false positive risk) that can be reported along with traditional P values and confidence intervals. We calculate these metrics for four well-known multicentre trials. We provide links to online calculators so readers can easily estimate these metrics for published trials. In this way, we hope decisions on incorporating the results of randomized trials into clinical practice can be enhanced, minimizing the chance that useful treatments are discarded or that ineffective treatments are adopted | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Bayes factor | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Bayes’ theorem | |
| 650 | 4 | |a false negative risk | |
| 650 | 4 | |a false positive risk | |
| 650 | 4 | |a randomized trials | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Barlow, C Jake |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Martin, Janet |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jones, Philip M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie |d 1987 |g 70(2023), 10 vom: 25. Okt., Seite 1560-1575 |w (DE-627)NLM012607282 |x 1496-8975 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:70 |g year:2023 |g number:10 |g day:25 |g month:10 |g pages:1560-1575 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-023-02557-5 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 70 |j 2023 |e 10 |b 25 |c 10 |h 1560-1575 | ||