The p-value - A well-understood and properly used statistical concept?

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 1-3

  Kuss, Oliver ^a   Stang, Andreas ^b  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITÄT HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^b MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NICKEL;

BAYES THEOREM; CONTACT DERMATITIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HAND ECZEMA; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OFFICE WORKER; PATCH TEST; PHYSICIAN; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESIDENT; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; THERAPEUTIC MISCONCEPTION;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BIOMETRY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 83455200398     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02002.x     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Windish D M, Huot S J, Green M L., Medicine residents' understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. JAMA 2007: 298: 1010-1022. (Pubitemid 47360812)
2. Darmon M, Tabah A., Basic concepts of biostatistics are poorly understood by intensivists. Intensive Care Med 2009: 35: 24.
3. Goodman S., A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions. Semin Hematol 2008: 45: 135-140. (Pubitemid 351876117)
4. Berkson J., Tests of significance considered as evidence. J Am Stat Assoc 1942: 37: 325-335.
5. Browner W S, Newman T B., Are all significant P values created equal? The analogy between diagnostic tests and clinical research. JAMA 1987: 257: 2459-2463. (Pubitemid 17065843)
6. Dickel H, Kreft B, Kuss O, et al., Increased sensitivity of patch testing by standardized tape stripping beforehand: a multicentre diagnostic accuracy study. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 294-302.
7. Uter W, Schnuch A, Gefeller O., Guidelines for the descriptive presentation and statistical analysis of contact allergy data. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 47-56. (Pubitemid 39331595)
8. Diepgen T L, Coenraads P J., Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of patch testing: the more you test, the more you get? ESCD Working Party on Epidemiology. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 315-317. (Pubitemid 30333238)
9. Apfelbacher C J, Funke U, Radulescu M, Diepgen T L., Determinants of current hand eczema: results from case-control studies nested in the PACO follow-up study (PACO II). Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 363-370.
10. Goodman S N., Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med 1999: 130: 1005-1013. (Pubitemid 29283992)
11. Sellke T, Bayarri M J, Berger J O., Calibration of p values for testing precise null hypotheses. Am Statist 2001: 55: 62-71.
12. Ioannidis J P., Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005: 2: e124.
13. FDA USFaDA. Guidance for the use of bayesian statistics in medical device clinical trials, 2010.
14. Ioannidis J P, Tatsioni A, Karassa F B., A vision for the European Journal of Clinical Investigation: note from the new editors. Eur J Clin Invest 2010: 40: 1-3.
15. Stang A, Poole C, Kuss O., The ongoing tyranny of statistical significance testing in biomedical research. Eur J Epidemiol 2010: 25: 225-230.
16. Kuss O, Dickel H., A confidence interval for the reaction index. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 252-253.
17. Kuss O, Dickel H., A confidence interval for the difference between two reaction indices. Contact Dermatitis 2011: 64: 164-165.