Medical researchers often attempt to understand whether a risk factor is involved in the aetiology of disease or whether an intervention reduces disease; this has been the subject of another article in this series.1 We typically do this by proposing scientific hypotheses from which testable statistical hypotheses can be developed. For example, our scientific hypothesis could be that people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have higher risk of depression compared with those who do not have IBS. A small study might show that one in ten in the control group have depression, compared with two in ten in the IBS group. This might reflect a real difference in the rate of depression between IBS and non-IBS populations, or the difference of one person between groups might simply be the play of chance. An empirical approach to answering this question might be to repeat the study multiple times, with larger numbers, and to look at the consistency of the results. Unfortunately, this is an expensive and time-consuming solution.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Jones MP, Walker MM, Attia JA. Understanding statistical principles in correlation, causation and moderation in human disease. Med J Aust 2017; 207: 104-106.
- 2. Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, et al. Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 2016; 31: 337-350.
- 3. Sterne JAC, Smith GD. Sifting the evidence — what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ 2001; 322: 226-231.
- 4. Berger JO. [Could Fisher, Jeffreys and Neyman have agreed on testing?]: Rejoinder. Stat Sci 2003; 18: 28-32.
- 5. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process and purpose. Am Stat 2016; 70: 129-133.
- 6. Crawford JR, Henry JD. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS): normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 2003; 42: 111-131.
No relevant disclosures.