CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,200Statistics Education and MethodologiesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations

Open access
Greenland, Sander, Senn, Stephen J., Rothman, Kenneth J., Carlin, John B., Poole, Charles, Goodman, Steven N., Altman, Douglas G.·2016·European Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3PMC PMC4877414
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Misinterpretation and abuse of statistical tests, confidence intervals, and statistical power have been decried for decades, yet remain rampant. A key problem is that there are no interpretations of these concepts that are at once simple, intuitive, correct, and foolproof. Instead, correct use and interpretation of these statistics requires an attention to detail which seems to tax the patience of working scientists. This high cognitive demand has led to an epidemic of shortcut definitions and interpretations that are simply wrong, sometimes disastrously so-and yet these misinterpretations dominate much of the scientific literature. In light of this problem, we provide definitions and a discussion of basic statistics that are more general and critical than typically found in traditional introductory expositions. Our goal is to provide a resource for instructors, researchers, and consumers of statistics whose knowledge of statistical theory and technique may be limited but who wish to avoid and spot misinterpretations. We emphasize how violation of often unstated analysis protocols (such as selecting analyses for presentation based on the P values they produce) can lead to small P values even if the declared test hypothesis is correct, and can lead to large P values even if that hypothesis is incorrect. We then provide an explanatory list of 25 misinterpretations of P values, confidence intervals, and power. We conclude with guidelines for improving statistical interpretation and reporting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3

Cites

130 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 135 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Ashworth A. Veto on the use of null hypothesis testing and p intervals: right or wrong? Taylor & Francis Editor. 2015. Resources online, http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/veto-on-the-use-of-null-hypothesis-testing-and-p-intervals-right-or-wrong/ . Accessed 27 Feb 2016.
  2. Flanagan O. Journal’s ban on null hypothesis significance testing: reactions from the statistical arena. 2015. Stats Life online, https://www.statslife.org.uk/opinion/2114-journal-s-ban-on-null-hypothesis-significance-testing-reactions-from-the-statistical-arena . Accessed 27 Feb 2016.
  3. Cox DR. The role of significance tests (with discussion). Scand J Stat. 1977;4:49–70.
  4. Freedman DA, Pisani R, Purves R. Statistics. 4th ed. New York: Norton; 2007.
  5. Hogben L. Statistical theory. London: Allen and Unwin; 1957.
  6. Ware JH, Mosteller F, Ingelfinger JA. p-Values. In: Bailar JC, Hoaglin DC, editors. Ch. 8. Medical uses of statistics. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2009. p. 175–94.
  7. Gigerenzer G. Mindless statistics. J Socioecon. 2004;33:567–606.
  8. Greenland S, Poole C. Problems in common interpretations of statistics in scientific articles, expert reports, and testimony. Jurimetrics. 2011;51:113–29.
  9. Kaye DH. Is proof of statistical significance relevant? Wash Law Rev. 1986;61:1333–66.
  10. Royall R. Statistical evidence. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1997.
  11. Greenland S, O’Rourke K. Meta-analysis Ch. 33. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Wolters-Kluwer; 2008. p. 682–5.
  12. Sterne JAC. Meta-analysis: an updated collection from the Stata journal. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3,200

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Luxembourg Institute of Health (LU)
  • RTI International (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Greenland, Sander
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-04
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
337-350
ISSN
  • 0393-2990 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7284
DOI
10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
PMC
PMC4877414
OpenAlex
W2408017125
Cited by
3,200
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 325 · 2025: 454 · 2024: 407 · 2023: 290 · 2022: 348 · 2021: 392 · 2020: 330 · 2019: 270 · 2018: 201 · 2017: 148 · 2016: 33
FWCI
220.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Seventh Framework Programme (602552)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
p-values, confidence intervals, statistical power, statistical misinterpretation, hypothesis testing, selective analysis, analysis protocol, statistical reporting guidelines, statistics education
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Probability, Confidence Intervals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review