Reproducibility issues in science, is P value really the only answer?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 111, Issue 19, 2014, Pages

  Gaudarta, Jean ^a   Huiart, Laetitia ^b   Milligan, Paul J ^c   Thiebaut, Rodolphe ^d   Giorgi, Roch ^a  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b Centre hospitalier regional de La Reunion   (France)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; FEASIBILITY STUDY; LETTER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SELECTION BIAS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84900477741     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1323051111     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Johnson VE (2013) Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(48):19313-19317.
2. Korn EL, et al. (2001) Clinical trial designs for cytostatic agents: Are new approaches needed? J Clin Oncol 19(1):265-272.
3. Horton R (2000) Common sense and figures: The rhetoric of validity in medicine (Bradford Hill Memorial Lecture 1999). Stat Med 19(23):3149-3164.
4. Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF (2012) Improving the reporting of randomised trials: The CONSORT Statement and beyond. Stat Med 31(25):2985-2997.
5. Hill AB (1965) The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58:295-300.