PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Multiple hypothesis testing (or multiple testing) refers to testing more than one hypothesis within a single analysis, and can inflate the type I error rate (false positives) within a study. The aim of this review was to quantify multiple testing in recent large clinical studies in the otolaryngology literature and to discuss strategies to address this potential problem.
METHODS: Original clinical research articles with >100 subjects published in 2012 in the four general otolaryngology journals with the highest Journal Citation Reports 5-year impact factors.
METHODS: Articles were reviewed to determine whether the authors tested greater than five hypotheses in at least one family of inferences. For the articles meeting this criterion for multiple testing, type I error rates were calculated, and statistical correction was applied to the reported results.
RESULTS: Of the 195 original clinical research articles reviewed, 72% met the criterion for multiple testing. Within these studies, there was a mean 41% chance of a type I error and, on average, 18% of significant results were likely to be false positives. After the Bonferroni correction was applied, only 57% of significant results reported within the articles remained significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple testing is common in recent large clinical studies in otolaryngology and deserves closer attention from researchers, reviewers, and editors. Strategies for adjusting for multiple testing are discussed.
METHODS: Original clinical research articles with >100 subjects published in 2012 in the four general otolaryngology journals with the highest Journal Citation Reports 5-year impact factors.
METHODS: Articles were reviewed to determine whether the authors tested greater than five hypotheses in at least one family of inferences. For the articles meeting this criterion for multiple testing, type I error rates were calculated, and statistical correction was applied to the reported results.
RESULTS: Of the 195 original clinical research articles reviewed, 72% met the criterion for multiple testing. Within these studies, there was a mean 41% chance of a type I error and, on average, 18% of significant results were likely to be false positives. After the Bonferroni correction was applied, only 57% of significant results reported within the articles remained significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple testing is common in recent large clinical studies in otolaryngology and deserves closer attention from researchers, reviewers, and editors. Strategies for adjusting for multiple testing are discussed.
摘要：
目的：多重假设检验（或多重检验）是指在一次分析中检验多个假设，并且可以夸大研究中的I型错误率（假阳性）。这篇综述的目的是量化耳鼻喉科文献中最近的大型临床研究中的多项测试，并讨论解决这一潜在问题的策略。
方法：2012年在四个普通耳鼻咽喉科期刊上发表了超过100名受试者的原始临床研究文章，期刊引文报告了5年的影响因素。
方法：对文章进行了综述，以确定作者是否在至少一个推论家族中测试了五个以上的假设。对于符合此标准的多次测试的文章，计算了I型错误率，并对报告的结果进行统计校正.
结果：在回顾的195篇原始临床研究文章中，72%满足多重测试的标准。在这些研究中,平均有41%的机会出现I型错误，平均而言,18%的显著结果可能是假阳性。在应用Bonferroni校正后，文章中报道的显著结果中,只有57%仍然显著.
结论：在耳鼻喉科的近期大型临床研究中，多重检测是常见的，值得研究人员密切关注。审稿人,和编辑。讨论了多次测试的调整策略。
方法：2012年在四个普通耳鼻咽喉科期刊上发表了超过100名受试者的原始临床研究文章，期刊引文报告了5年的影响因素。
方法：对文章进行了综述，以确定作者是否在至少一个推论家族中测试了五个以上的假设。对于符合此标准的多次测试的文章，计算了I型错误率，并对报告的结果进行统计校正.
结果：在回顾的195篇原始临床研究文章中，72%满足多重测试的标准。在这些研究中,平均有41%的机会出现I型错误，平均而言,18%的显著结果可能是假阳性。在应用Bonferroni校正后，文章中报道的显著结果中,只有57%仍然显著.
结论：在耳鼻喉科的近期大型临床研究中，多重检测是常见的，值得研究人员密切关注。审稿人,和编辑。讨论了多次测试的调整策略。
