The null hypothesis significance test in health sciences research (1995-2006): statistical analysis and interpretation
The null hypothesis significance test in health sciences research (1995-2006): statistical analysis and interpretation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-10-44
复制
发表时间：
2010-05-19
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Fernandez-Somoano, Ana
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carlos Silva-Aycaguer, Luis;Suarez-Gil, Patricio;Fernandez-Somoano, Ana
背景：零假设显着性检验(NHST)是最常用的统计方法，但其推理有效性自提出以来一直受到广泛的批评。1988年，国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)警告不要完全依赖NHST来证实研究结论，并建议补充使用可信区间(CI)。我们的目标是参考国际医学期刊编辑委员会的建议，评估1995-2006年间英语和西班牙语生物医学出版物中NHST和CI的使用程度和质量，特别是对统计学意义解释的准确性和结论的有效性。方法：本研究以三种英文和三种西班牙生物医学期刊上发表的三个领域(普通医学、临床专科和流行病学-公共卫生)的原始文章为研究对象。通过系统抽样的方法选择1995-1996年、2000-2001年和2005-2006年发表的论文。剔除纯描述性和理论性文献后，分析研究使用NHST结合P值和/或CI来解释研究结论中的统计学“显著性”和“相关性”。结果：在1043篇原始文献中，874篇用于详细综述。在英语出版物和公共卫生期刊中，单独使用P值的频率较低；总体而言，这种使用从1995-1996年的41%下降到2005-2006年的21%。虽然CI的使用随着时间的推移而增加，但“显著性谬误”(将统计学意义和实质性意义等同)经常出现，主要出现在专门介绍临床专业的期刊上(81%)。在英文和西班牙文的论文中，分别有15%和10%的论文在结论中提到了统计学意义。结论：总体而言，我们的综述结果显示统计结果的统计管理有所改进，但显然需要学者和期刊编辑进一步努力，将沟通转向ICMJE建议，特别是在临床环境中，这在西班牙语出版物中似乎是势在必行的。
Background: The null hypothesis significance test (NHST) is the most frequently used statistical method, although its inferential validity has been widely criticized since its introduction. In 1988, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) warned against sole reliance on NHST to substantiate study conclusions and suggested supplementary use of confidence intervals (CI). Our objective was to evaluate the extent and quality in the use of NHST and CI, both in English and Spanish language biomedical publications between 1995 and 2006, taking into account the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, with particular focus on the accuracy of the interpretation of statistical significance and the validity of conclusions.Methods: Original articles published in three English and three Spanish biomedical journals in three fields (General Medicine, Clinical Specialties and Epidemiology - Public Health) were considered for this study. Papers published in 1995-1996, 2000-2001, and 2005-2006 were selected through a systematic sampling method. After excluding the purely descriptive and theoretical articles, analytic studies were evaluated for their use of NHST with P-values and/or CI for interpretation of statistical "significance" and "relevance" in study conclusions.Results: Among 1,043 original papers, 874 were selected for detailed review. The exclusive use of P-values was less frequent in English language publications as well as in Public Health journals; overall such use decreased from 41% in 1995-1996 to 21% in 2005-2006. While the use of CI increased over time, the "significance fallacy" (to equate statistical and substantive significance) appeared very often, mainly in journals devoted to clinical specialties (81%). In papers originally written in English and Spanish, 15% and 10%, respectively, mentioned statistical significance in their conclusions.Conclusions: Overall, results of our review show some improvements in statistical management of statistical results, but further efforts by scholars and journal editors are clearly required to move the communication toward ICMJE advices, especially in the clinical setting, which seems to be imperative among publications in Spanish.