IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0142132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From P-Values to Objective Probabilities in Assessing Medical Treatments

Author

Listed:
  • David Kault
  • Sam Kault

Abstract

The assessment of the effectiveness of a treatment in a clinical trial, depends on calculating p-values. However, p-values are only indirect and partial indicators of a genuine effect. Particularly in situations where publication bias is very likely, assessment using a p-value of 0.05 may not be sufficiently cautious. In other situations it seems reasonable to believe that assessment based on p-values may be unduly conservative. Assessments could be improved by using prior information. This implies using a Bayesian approach to take account of prior probability. However, the use of prior information in the form of expert opinion can allow bias. A method is given here that applies to assessments already included or likely to be included in the Cochrane Collaboration, excluding those reviews concerning new drugs. This method uses prior information and a Bayesian approach, but the prior information comes not from expert opinion but simply from the distribution of effectiveness apparent in a random sample of summary statistics in the Cochrane Collaboration. The method takes certain types of summary statistics and their confidence intervals and with the help of a graph, translates this into probabilities that the treatments being trialled are effective.

Suggested Citation

  • David Kault & Sam Kault, 2015. "From P-Values to Objective Probabilities in Assessing Medical Treatments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0142132
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142132
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142132&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0142132?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0142132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.