Most of the time, P is an unreliable marker, so we need no exact cut-off

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Volumn 116, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 893-

  Drummond, G B ^a  

^a Edinburgh   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; LETTER; MEDICAL EXPERT; NULL HYPOTHESIS; POWER OF A TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOM SAMPLE; REFERENCE VALUE; RELIABILITY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STUDENT T TEST; ANESTHESIA; ANESTHESIOLOGY; RESEARCH; SEMANTICS; STATISTICS; TIME;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ANESTHESIA; ANESTHESIOLOGY; BIOMARKERS; RESEARCH;

EID: 84973341488     PISSN: 00070912     EISSN: 14716771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew146     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Gibbs NM, Gibbs SV. Misuse of 'trend' to describe 'almost significant' differences in anaesthesia research. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115: 337-9
2. Drummond GB, Tom BDM. Statistics, probability, significance, likelihood: words mean whatwe define them to mean. J Physiol 2011; 589: 3901-4
3. Halsey LG, Curran-Everett D, Vowler S, Drummond GB. The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods 2015; 12: 179-85
4. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005; 294: 218-28