Death of the P Value? Bayesian Statistics for Orthopaedic Surgeons.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Pub Date : 2025-03-15 Epub Date: 2024-12-10 DOI:10.5435/JAAOS-D-24-00813
Michael Polmear, Terrie Vasilopoulos, Nathan O'Hara, Thomas Krupko
{"title":"Death of the P Value? Bayesian Statistics for Orthopaedic Surgeons.","authors":"Michael Polmear, Terrie Vasilopoulos, Nathan O'Hara, Thomas Krupko","doi":"10.5435/JAAOS-D-24-00813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Statistical interpretation is foundational to evidence-based medicine. Frequentist ( P value testing) and Bayesian statistics are two major approaches for hypothesis testing. Studies analyzed with Bayesian methods are increasingly common with a 4-fold increase in the past 10 years. The Bayesian approach can align with clinical decision making by interpreting smaller differences that are not limited by P values and misleading claims of \"trends toward significance.\" Both methods follow a workflow that includes sampling, hypothesis testing, interpretation, and iteration. Frequentist methodology is familiar and common. However, the limitations are the misunderstanding, misuse, and deceptively simple utility of interpreting dichotomous P values. Bayesian approaches are relatively less common and provide an alternative approach to trial design and data interpretation. Marginal differences elucidated by Bayesian methods may be perceived as less decisive than a P value that may reject a null hypothesis. The purposes of this review are to introduce Bayesian principles and Bayes theorem, define how pretest probability and known information may inform diagnostic testing using an example from prosthetic joint infection, contrast Bayesian and frequentist approaches using an example from the VANCO orthopaedic prospective trial, and describe the criteria for critically reviewing Bayesian studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons","volume":" ","pages":"285-300"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-24-00813","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Statistical interpretation is foundational to evidence-based medicine. Frequentist ( P value testing) and Bayesian statistics are two major approaches for hypothesis testing. Studies analyzed with Bayesian methods are increasingly common with a 4-fold increase in the past 10 years. The Bayesian approach can align with clinical decision making by interpreting smaller differences that are not limited by P values and misleading claims of "trends toward significance." Both methods follow a workflow that includes sampling, hypothesis testing, interpretation, and iteration. Frequentist methodology is familiar and common. However, the limitations are the misunderstanding, misuse, and deceptively simple utility of interpreting dichotomous P values. Bayesian approaches are relatively less common and provide an alternative approach to trial design and data interpretation. Marginal differences elucidated by Bayesian methods may be perceived as less decisive than a P value that may reject a null hypothesis. The purposes of this review are to introduce Bayesian principles and Bayes theorem, define how pretest probability and known information may inform diagnostic testing using an example from prosthetic joint infection, contrast Bayesian and frequentist approaches using an example from the VANCO orthopaedic prospective trial, and describe the criteria for critically reviewing Bayesian studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
P值的消亡?骨科贝叶斯统计。
统计解释是循证医学的基础。频率检验(P值检验)和贝叶斯统计是检验假设的两种主要方法。用贝叶斯方法分析的研究越来越普遍,在过去10年中增加了4倍。贝叶斯方法通过解释不受P值限制的较小差异和误导性的“显著趋势”主张,可以与临床决策保持一致。这两种方法都遵循一个工作流,包括抽样、假设检验、解释和迭代。频率论的方法论是大家所熟悉和普遍的。然而,其局限性在于误解、误用和解释二分P值的简单实用。贝叶斯方法相对来说不太常见,为试验设计和数据解释提供了另一种方法。贝叶斯方法阐明的边际差异可能被认为不如可能拒绝原假设的P值具有决定性。本综述的目的是介绍贝叶斯原理和贝叶斯定理,以假体关节感染为例,定义预测概率和已知信息如何为诊断测试提供信息,以VANCO骨科前瞻性试验为例,对比贝叶斯方法和频率方法,并描述批判性评价贝叶斯研究的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
529
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons was established in the fall of 1993 by the Academy in response to its membership’s demand for a clinical review journal. Two issues were published the first year, followed by six issues yearly from 1994 through 2004. In September 2005, JAAOS began publishing monthly issues. Each issue includes richly illustrated peer-reviewed articles focused on clinical diagnosis and management. Special features in each issue provide commentary on developments in pharmacotherapeutics, materials and techniques, and computer applications.
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated With an LLM Arriving at the Same Diagnosis as a Musculoskeletal Specialist. Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Offers Safer Inpatient Profiles But at Greater Cost Compared With Posterolateral Fusion: National Outcomes for Spondylolisthesis From 2016 to 2022. Microbiological Differences Among Age Groups in Patients Diagnosed With Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Database Analysis of 2,392 Patients: Erratum. Gathering Orthobiologic Real-World Evidence Using Registries and Biorepositories: Proceedings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons-Biologic Association Symposium November, 2022: Erratum. Modern Approaches and Time-Tested Methods in Managing Congenital Scoliosis in Children: Erratum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1