[Statistical power in medical research. What position should be taken when research results are not significant?]

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
C Carazo-Díaz, L Prieto-Valiente
{"title":"[Statistical power in medical research. What position should be taken when research results are not significant?]","authors":"C Carazo-Díaz, L Prieto-Valiente","doi":"10.33588/rn.7905.2024099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The original idea of rejecting studies with low power and authorising them if their power is sufficiently high is reasonable and even an obligation, although in practice this reasoning is heavily constrained by the fact that the power of a study depends on several factors, rather than a single one. Furthermore, there is no threshold separating 'high' power values from 'low' power values'. However, if the result is very significant, considering how powerful it was it makes little sense after the study has been carried out. It is only possible to take advantage of the result. Situations in which this result is not statistically significant warrant further consideration. Consideration of the power may be useful in these circumstances. This article focuses on the position that should be adopted in these cases, and it shows that in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the effect size of the population, calculating the confidence interval is more useful than calculating the power, and its interpretation is more easily understood by physicians who lack training in statistical analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":21281,"journal":{"name":"Revista de neurologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11469103/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de neurologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.7905.2024099","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The original idea of rejecting studies with low power and authorising them if their power is sufficiently high is reasonable and even an obligation, although in practice this reasoning is heavily constrained by the fact that the power of a study depends on several factors, rather than a single one. Furthermore, there is no threshold separating 'high' power values from 'low' power values'. However, if the result is very significant, considering how powerful it was it makes little sense after the study has been carried out. It is only possible to take advantage of the result. Situations in which this result is not statistically significant warrant further consideration. Consideration of the power may be useful in these circumstances. This article focuses on the position that should be adopted in these cases, and it shows that in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the effect size of the population, calculating the confidence interval is more useful than calculating the power, and its interpretation is more easily understood by physicians who lack training in statistical analysis.

[医学研究中的统计能力。当研究结果不显著时应采取何种立场?]
最初的想法是拒绝接受低功率的研究,如果其功率足够高,则批准这些研究,这种想法是合理的,甚至是一种义务,尽管在实践中,这种推理受到很大限制,因为研究的功率取决于多个因素,而不是单一因素。此外,'高'功率值与'低'功率值之间并没有阈值之分。然而,如果研究结果非常重要,那么在研究结束后再考虑它的作用力就没有什么意义了。只能利用这一结果。如果该结果在统计上并不显著,则需要进一步考虑。在这些情况下,考虑研究的有效性可能会有所帮助。本文重点讨论了在这些情况下应采取的立场,并说明为了对人群的效应大小得出合理的结论,计算可信区间比计算功率更有用,其解释也更容易为缺乏统计分析培训的医生所理解。
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
Revista de neurologia
Revista de neurologia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
117
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Revista de Neurología fomenta y difunde el conocimiento generado en lengua española sobre neurociencia, tanto clínica como experimental.
×
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