PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7566865

The problem of the type II statistical error.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if type II statistical errors (also known as beta errors) are a common problem in published clinical research. METHODS: Type II statistical errors occur when sample sizes are too small to show an effect of treatment, even when an effect truly exists. Searching the Medline data base, we identified ten meta-analyses published during 1986-1994 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and The Journal of Reproductive Medicine. Meta-analyses were used as sources of component or individual studies for the following reason: When small component studies have negative findings that differ from the overall conclusions of the meta-analysis, the component studies may have type II statistical errors. RESULTS: We found that only 6.5% (15 of 231) of component studies provided any documentation that power calculations to determine sample sizes had been done a priori (before) the research began. Thus, many of these component studies with findings of no treatment effect may have had type II errors because of too-small sample sizes. When stratifying the component studies by year of publication, we found that 7.9% (14 of 178) of studies published in the 1980s and 1990s had any documented evidence of a priori power calculations. In the 1960s and 1970s, only one of 53 component studies had documented evidence of power calculations. CONCLUSION: To ensure that truly effective treatments are introduced into clinical practice as quickly as possible, we believe that a priori power calculations should always be done in quantitative clinical research.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Mittendorf, V Arun, A M Sapugay. 1995. The problem of the type II statistical error.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00251-l

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Egger's regression test is often used to help detect publication bias in meta-analyses. However, the performance of this test and the usual funnel plot have been challenged particularly when the summary estimate is the natural log of the odds ratio (lnOR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Egger's regression test with a regression test based on sample size (a modification of Macaskill's test) with lnOR as the summary estimate. DESIGN: Simulation of meta-analyses under a number of scenarios in the presence and absence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type I error rates (the proportion of false-positive results) for each regression test and their power to detect publication bias when it is present (the proportion of true-positive results). RESULTS: Type I error rates for Egger's regression test are higher than those for the alternative regression test. The alternative regression test has the appropriate type I error rates regardless of the size of the underlying OR, the number of primary studies in the meta-analysis, and the level of between-study heterogeneity. The alternative regression test has comparable power to Egger's regression test to detect publication bias under conditions of low between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Because of appropriate type I error rates and reduction in the correlation between the lnOR and its variance, the alternative regression test can be used in place of Egger's regression test when the summary estimates are lnORs.

Meta-Analysis as Topic↗

A primer on reviewing and synthesizing evidence.

In this editorial, I shall describe methods commonly used for synthesizing evidence and review some contemporary examples of how this methodology has been applied to the peer-reviewed literature. It is my hope that the reader will find this interesting, but more importantly useful as you find yourself reading the evermore voluminous medical literature.

Meta-Analysis as Topic↗