Lowering the p value threshold in recently published Respiratory Medicine RCTs

A. Malhotra, K. Grice, N. Shah
{"title":"Lowering the p value threshold in recently published Respiratory Medicine RCTs","authors":"A. Malhotra, K. Grice, N. Shah","doi":"10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.pa1484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The use and misuse of p values remains controversial, with increasing support for lowering the threshold of statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005, to reduce false positive results. A recent evaluation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) determined that 70% would maintain significance if the p value threshold was Methods: RCTs published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM), European Respiratory Journal (ERJ), Chest, Lancet Respiratory Medicine and Thorax (2017-2018) were identified. Pooled analyses and RCTs using Bayesian or noninferiority analyses were excluded. Data extracted included whether each RCT was multicentre, multinational, a drug trial and sample size. Results: 125 studies were included. 62/125 (49.6%) reported a significant primary end point with p value Discussion: Of statistically significant primary end points published in respiratory medicine RCTs, only 50% would maintain statistical significance with a threshold of 0.005. This may be because treatment effects are not large enough to be assessed at this level of significance. Lowering the p value threshold would have an important impact on the clinical applicability of RCT findings and alternative methods such as Bayesian analysis should be explored as potential solutions to the controversy of p values. Reference: [1] JAMA. 2016;315(11):1141-1148.","PeriodicalId":228043,"journal":{"name":"Medical education, web and internet","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical education, web and internet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.pa1484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: The use and misuse of p values remains controversial, with increasing support for lowering the threshold of statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005, to reduce false positive results. A recent evaluation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) determined that 70% would maintain significance if the p value threshold was Methods: RCTs published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM), European Respiratory Journal (ERJ), Chest, Lancet Respiratory Medicine and Thorax (2017-2018) were identified. Pooled analyses and RCTs using Bayesian or noninferiority analyses were excluded. Data extracted included whether each RCT was multicentre, multinational, a drug trial and sample size. Results: 125 studies were included. 62/125 (49.6%) reported a significant primary end point with p value Discussion: Of statistically significant primary end points published in respiratory medicine RCTs, only 50% would maintain statistical significance with a threshold of 0.005. This may be because treatment effects are not large enough to be assessed at this level of significance. Lowering the p value threshold would have an important impact on the clinical applicability of RCT findings and alternative methods such as Bayesian analysis should be explored as potential solutions to the controversy of p values. Reference: [1] JAMA. 2016;315(11):1141-1148.
降低最近发表的呼吸医学随机对照试验的p值阈值
前言:p值的使用和误用仍然存在争议,越来越多的人支持将统计显著性阈值从0.05降低到0.005,以减少假阳性结果。最近对随机对照试验(rct)的评估确定,如果p值阈值为,则70%将保持显著性。方法:确定发表在《美国呼吸与重症监护医学杂志》(AJRCCM)、《欧洲呼吸杂志》(ERJ)、《Chest》、《柳叶刀呼吸医学》和《Thorax》(2017-2018)上的随机对照试验。排除了使用贝叶斯或非劣效性分析的合并分析和随机对照试验。提取的数据包括每个RCT是否为多中心、多国、药物试验和样本量。结果:纳入125项研究。讨论:在呼吸道医学随机对照试验中发表的具有统计学意义的主要终点中,只有50%的主要终点维持统计学意义,阈值为0.005。这可能是因为治疗效果还不够大,不足以在这个显著性水平上进行评估。降低p值阈值将对RCT结果的临床适用性产生重要影响,应探索贝叶斯分析等替代方法作为解决p值争议的潜在解决方案。参考文献:b[1] JAMA。2016, 315(11): 1141 - 1148。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信