Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Interpreting “statistical hypothesis testing” results in clinical research.
J Ayurveda Integr Med ; 2012 Apr-June; 3(2): 65-69
Article in English | IMSEAR | ID: sea-173112
ABSTRACT
Difference between “Clinical Signifi cance and Statistical Signifi cance” should be kept in mind while interpreting “statistical hypothesis testing” results in clinical research. This fact is already known to many but again pointed out here as philosophy of “statistical hypothesis testing” is sometimes unnecessarily criticized mainly due to failure in considering such distinction. Randomized controlled trials are also wrongly criticized similarly. Some scientifi c method may not be applicable in some peculiar/particular situation does not mean that the method is useless. Also remember that “statistical hypothesis testing” is not for decision making and the fi eld of “decision analysis” is very much an integral part of science of statistics. It is not correct to say that “confi dence intervals have nothing to do with confi dence” unless one understands meaning of the word “confi dence” as used in context of confi dence interval. Interpretation of the results of every study should always consider all possible alternative explanations like chance, bias, and confounding. Statistical tests in inferential statistics are, in general, designed to answer the question “How likely is the difference found in random sample(s) is due to chance” and therefore limitation of relying only on statistical signifi cance in making clinical decisions should be avoided.

Full text: Available Index: IMSEAR (South-East Asia) Type of study: Controlled clinical trial / Prognostic study Language: English Journal: J Ayurveda Integr Med Year: 2012 Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS

Full text: Available Index: IMSEAR (South-East Asia) Type of study: Controlled clinical trial / Prognostic study Language: English Journal: J Ayurveda Integr Med Year: 2012 Type: Article