Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15065481

Using a computer to perform statistical analysis.

Denis Anthony
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

SPSS, and other statistical packages, make it easy to perform complex statistical analysis, but even simple analysis such as tables and graphical output are much simpler using such a package. Use of such a package does, unfortunately, also allow you to perform meaningless statistics and incorrect statistical tests, and give misleading or wrong interpretations. You will still need to understand some statistics, but you will not need to be able to compute the results yourself. A statistics package allows you to concentrate on the appropriateness of a test and interpretation of the results. It does not do the whole job for you.

Explore related subjects

BiasChi-Square DistributionClinical Nursing ResearchData Interpretation, StatisticalDrug OverdoseHumansNumerical Analysis, Computer-AssistedPredictive Value of TestsRecurrenceSoftwareSuicideJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Denis Anthony. 2004. Using a computer to perform statistical analysis.. https://doi.org/10.7748/cnp.v1.i7.pg9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2005

Supplementary analysis of probabilities at the termination of a group sequential phase II trial.

We consider estimation of various probabilities after termination of a group sequential phase II trial. A motivating example is that the stopping rule of a phase II oncologic trial is determined solely based on response to a drug treatment, and at the end of the trial estimating the rate of toxicity and response is desirable. The conventional maximum likelihood estimator (sample proportion) of a probability is shown to be biased, and two alternative estimators are proposed to correct for bias, a bias-reduced estimator obtained by using Whitehead's bias-adjusted approach, and an unbiased estimator from the Rao-Blackwell method of conditioning. All three estimation procedures are shown to have certain invariance property in bias. Moreover, estimators of a probability and their bias and precision can be evaluated through the observed response rate and the stage at which the trial stops, thus avoiding extensive computation.

Bias↗