Shifting the focus away from binary thinking of statistical significance and towards education for key stakeholders: revisiting the debate on whether it's time to de-emphasize or get rid of statistical significance
- 7 April 2021
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Elsevier BV in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 137, 104-112
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.033
Abstract
No abstract availableThis publication has 73 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?PLOS ONE, 2013
- Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort StudyPLoS Medicine, 2012
- The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trialThe Lancet, 2011
- Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in childrenThe Lancet, 2010
- Bias, Spin, and Misreporting: Time for Full Access to Trial Protocols and ResultsPLoS Medicine, 2008
- Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children’s blood samplesBMJ, 2008
- Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risksBMJ, 2006
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in childrenThe Lancet, 1998
- The H.G. Wells quote on statistics: A question of accuracyHistoria Mathematica, 1979