Rigorous uncertainty: Why RA Fisher is important

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 932-937

  Marks, Harry M ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; BIOMETRY; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE COURSE; EMPIRICISM; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; GENETICS; LITERATURE; MEDICAL ETHICS; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; TUBERCULOSIS;

ENGLAND; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 0347917040     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyg288     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (61)

1. Rosenberger WF, Lachin J. Randomization in Clinical Trials. Theory and Practice. New York: John Wiley, 2002.
2. Abel U, Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:487-97.
3. Horton R. The clinical trial: deceitful, disputable, unbelievable, unhelpful, and shameful - what next? Control Clin Trials 2001;22: 593-604.
4. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1878-86.
5. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1887-92.
6. Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 2000;342:1907-09.
7. Gilbert JP, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Progress in surgery and anesthesia: Benefits and risks of innovative therapy. In: Bunker JP, Barnes BA, Mosteller F. Costs, Risks and Benefits of Surgery. Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press, 1977, pp. 24-169.
8. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Stat Med 1989;8:441-54.
9. Miller JN, Colditz JA, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgery. Star Med 1989;8:455-66.
10. Ioannidis JPA, Haidach AB, Pappa M et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001;286:821-30.
11. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;317:1185-90.
12. Armitage P. Bradford Hill and the randomized controlled trial. Pharmaceutical Medicine 1992;6:23-37.
13. Armitage P. Fisher, Bradford Hill, and Randomization. Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:925-28.
14. Hart PD. A change in scientific approach: from alternation to randomised allocation in the clinical trials in the 1940s. BMJ 1999; 319:572-73.
15. Yoshioka A. Use of randomisation in the Medical Research Council's clinical trial of streptomycin in pulmonary tuberculosis in the 1940s. BMJ 1998;317:1220-23.
16. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002;359:614-18.
17. Marks HM. The Progress of Experiment. Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900-1990. New York: Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997, pp. 155-58.
18. Hill AB. Assessment of therapeutic trials. Trans Med Soc London 1953;68:128-47.
19. Marks HM. Trust and mistrust in the marketplace: statistics and clinical research, 1945-1960. History of Science 2000;38:343-55.
20. Chalmers I. Comparing like with like: some historical milestones in the evolution of methods to create unbiased comparison groups in therapeutic experiments. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:1156-64.
21. Tröhler U. To Improve the Practice of Medicine. The 18th Century British Origins of a Critical Approach. Edinburgh: Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 2000.
22. Daston LJ. Classical Probability in the Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988, pp. 82-89.
23. Marks HM. Should the State Count Lives? An Eighteenth-Century Controversy Over Smallpox Inoculation. Conference on Quantification dans les Sciences Médicales, Fondation Mérieux, 23-25 October 2002.
24. Matthews JR. Quantification and the Quest for Medical Certainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 14-85.
25. Fisher RA. The Design of Experiments. London: Oliver & Boyd, 1935, pp. 35-38, 46-49, 68-70.
26. Fisher RA. The arrangement of field experiments. J Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain 1926;33:503-13.
27. Bennett JH (ed.). Statistical Inference and Analysis. Selected Correspondence of R.A. Fisher. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 269.
28. Box J. RA Fisher and the design of experiments, 1922-1926. Am Stat 1980;34:1-7.
29. Fisher RA. The Place of the Design of Experiments in the Logic of Scientific Inference. Paris: Le Plan de Experiences, Editions de la Recherche Scientifique, 1963, p. 15.
30. Fisher RA. The underworld of Probability. Sankhya 1957;18:201-10.
31. Savage LJ. On rereading RA Fisher. Ann Star 1976;4:441-500.
32. Aldrich J. RA Fisher and the making of maximum likelihood 1912-1922. Stat Sci 1997;12:162-76.
33. Mazumdar PMH. Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings. The Eugenics Society, Its Sources and Critics in Britain. London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 96-103.
34. Soloway RA. Demography and Degeneration. Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.
35. Fisher RA. Some hopes of a eugenist. Eugenics Review 1914;5: 309-15.
36. Fisher RA. Positive eugenics. Eugenics Review 1917;9:206-12.
37. Perkin H. The Rise of Professional Society. England Since 1880. London: Routledge, 1990.
38. McKibben R. Classes and Cultures. England 1918-1951. London: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 50-59, 98-102.
39. Box J. RA Fisher. The Life of A Scientist. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978, pp. 194, 198-99.
40. Fisher RA. The bearing of genetics on theories of evolution. Science Progress 1932;27:273-87.
41. Fisher RA. The logic of inductive inference. J R Statist Soc 1935;98:39-82.
42. Fisher RA. The nature of probability. Centennial Review of Arts and Sciences 1956;2:261-74.
43. Bartlett, MS. Jerzy Neyman 16 April 1894-5 August 1981. II. Neyman and the theory of statistical inference. Biog Mem Fellows R Soc 1982;28:390-98.
44. Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc London A 1933;321: 289-337.
45. Neyman J. Basic ideas and some recent results of the theory of testing statistical hypotheses. J R Statist Soc 1942;105:292-327.
46. Fisher R. Statistical methods and scientific induction. J R Statist Soc B 1955;17:69-78.
47. McGucken W. Scientists, Society and State. The Social Relations of Science Movement in Great Britain 1931-1947. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984, pp. 275-91.
48. Fisher RA. Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1956, p. 7.
49. Krementsov N. Stalinist Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997, pp. 159-83.
50. Jones G. Science, Politics and the Cold War. London: Routledge, 1988, P. 19.
51. Graham LR. Science in Russia and the Soviet Union. A Short History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 128-31.
52. Fisher RA. The Lysenko controversy. The Listener 1948;40:874-75.
53. Neyman J. Note on an article by Sir Ronald Fisher. J R Statist Soc B 1956;18:288-94.
54. Mainland D. Statistics in clinical research: some general principles. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1950;52:922-30.
55. Greenberg BG. Why randomize? Biometrics 1951;7:309-22.
56. Mainland D. The use and misuse of statistics in medical publications. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1960;1:411-22.
57. Goodman SN, Royall R. Evidence and scientific research. Am J Public Health 1988;78:1568-74.
58. Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals: some recent trends. Stat Med 2000;19:3281-84.
59. Sterne J, Davey Smith G. Sifting the evidence: what's wrong with significance tests. BMJ 2001;322:226-31.
60. Cutler SJ, Greenhouse SW, Cornfield J et al. The role of hypothesis testing in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 1966;19:857-82.
61. Royall R. On the probability of observing misleading statistical evidence. J Am Statist Assoc 2000;95:760-80.