Considering the Importance of Power Calculations

医学 功率(物理) 价值(数学) 统计 显著性差异 计量经济学 数学 热力学 内科学 物理
作者
Timothy J. McCulloch
出处
期刊:Anesthesia & Analgesia [Lippincott Williams & Wilkins]
卷期号:115 (4): 979-980 被引量:1
标识
DOI:10.1213/ane.0b013e318263ca6e
摘要

To the Editor In an article discussing minimum effect size of interest, Gibbs and Weightman1 consider several scenarios based on a hypothetical study of blood pressure after tracheal intubation. The authors emphasize the importance of the power calculation when interpreting the results of clinical trials. Although I agree that the power of a study is important, I believe the authors have overstated its importance in certain situations. In one scenario (their scenario 3), the hypothetical study reports an effect that is statistically significant but smaller than the minimum effect size used in the power calculation. The authors note that there may or may not be legitimate reasons for shifting the goal posts and claiming that a smaller effect size is in fact clinically significant. However, the authors argue that such a result is not statistically robust because, based on the initial power calculations, there is a low probability that repeating the study would find a statistically significant effect. In support of this conclusion, the authors cite Goodman2 who showed that when a positive result is only moderately statistically significant, the probability is surprisingly high that a repeat of the study would fail to find a statistically significant difference. Gibbs and Weightman support this conclusion but they base their approach on the a priori power whereas Goodman used the P value and he explicitly stated that his results are “independent of the power of the original study.” It is worth considering how an observed effect can be statistically significant despite being smaller than the minimum effect size of interest used in the power calculation. This can occur when the standard deviation observed in the study is smaller than the standard deviation that was used in the power calculation, as would have been the case in Gibbs and Weightman's scenario 3. The question then arises: Which is the more valid estimate of the population standard deviation, the observed standard deviation or the a priori estimate? It could be argued that the standard deviation observed in a study sample is not always the best available estimate of the population standard deviation. The approach by Gibbs and Weightman may be preferred if the study is small and there exists a large amount of data from prior studies. However, researchers often have little data available to derive the estimated standard deviation needed in their a priori power calculations. For this reason, I believe one of the conclusions by Gibbs and Weightman is incorrect, i.e., that a positive result is necessarily less robust just because the observed effect size is smaller than the effect size used in the a priori power calculation. According to Goodman's approach, studies with the same P value are considered equally repeatable regardless of the effect size and the original power calculation. Gibbs and Weightman also discuss the interpretation of a study reporting no statistically significant difference (their scenario 1) and emphasize the importance of considering the power of the study before rejecting the possibility of a real effect. This is clearly very sound advice. However, the authors were not correct when stating that the power of the study (in this case 80%) gives the probability that a real effect actually exists (supposedly 20%). To illustrate the fallacy, imagine an absurdly underpowered study with only a handful of patients in each group and a power of 10%. If such a study fails to demonstrate an effect, it would be incorrect to conclude there is a 90% probability that a real effect exists! The value (1 − power) estimates the chance of missing an effect if it exists; it does not give the probability that an effect actually does exist. Timothy James McCulloch, MBBS, BSc(Med), FANZCA Department of Anaesthetics Royal Prince Alfred Hospital University of Sydney Camperdown NSW, Australia [email protected]
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
4564321发布了新的文献求助30
刚刚
万能图书馆应助哒哒哒宰采纳,获得10
刚刚
嘟嘟完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
刚刚
huang应助激昂的香寒采纳,获得10
1秒前
半分青完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
1秒前
lu发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
19554133922发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
2秒前
111发布了新的文献求助30
2秒前
2秒前
懿卿发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
小仙女发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
gmaster发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
3秒前
罗罗发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
李莹发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
3秒前
gyusbjshaxb发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
4秒前
成就的大米完成签到 ,获得积分10
4秒前
王金金完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
4564321完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
白白完成签到,获得积分20
5秒前
樱花巷y发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
yin完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
科研通AI6.4应助牧歌采纳,获得10
5秒前
6秒前
田様应助一关接一关采纳,获得10
6秒前
南瓜小笨111111完成签到 ,获得积分10
6秒前
6秒前
11完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
6秒前
sasa发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
小趴菜应助重要的念珍采纳,获得10
7秒前
8秒前
搜集达人应助柚子采纳,获得10
8秒前
Lucas应助小陈采纳,获得10
8秒前
GWR完成签到 ,获得积分10
8秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
2026年中国辛酸癸酸聚乙二醇甘油酯行业市场现状调查及投资机会研判报告 1000
2026年中国辛酸癸酸聚乙二醇甘油酯行业市场规模及竞争格局分析报告 1000
Resiliency Scale for Adolescents--Chinese Version 800
Fundamentals of Pharmaceutical and Biologics Regulations: A Global Perspective, Second Edition 700
作者名:Kristopher P. Plain,悉尼大学的,目前只能查到其四篇论文,想找到其博士论文 550
Matrix Methods in Data Mining and Pattern Recognition Second Edition 510
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 纳米技术 工程类 有机化学 化学工程 生物化学 计算机科学 内科学 物理 复合材料 催化作用 细胞生物学 无机化学 光电子学 物理化学 电极 基因
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 7327820
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 8942699
关于积分的说明 18967097
捐赠科研通 6983783
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 3216182
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 2382982
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 2195629