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":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","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":"","PubModel":"","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.
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.