Type II Error in the Spine Surgical Literature
- 1 May 2004
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Spine
- Vol. 29 (10), 1146-1149
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200405150-00018
Abstract
A literature review. To determine the frequency of potential type II errors published in the spine surgical literature. The randomized controlled trial is the strongest clinical evidence available in investigational medicine. Unfortunately, it is common for randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals not to report a primary question or a sample size calculation. When the null hypothesis is accepted and the power of a study is unreported, the validity of a study’s findings may be significantly limited. To our knowledge, the spine literature has not been appraised to determine the frequency of type II errors. A literature search was conducted of MED-LINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases, using the key words of “spine” and “surgery” between 1967 and 2002. Trials were included if they were of a 2-group randomized controlled trial design, which reported a nonsignificant difference in the primary outcome. The frequency of reporting the primary outcome and sample size calculation was determined. The sample size was assessed to determine whether the trial had sufficient patients to detect a 10%, 25%, and 35% relative difference in the primary outcome for a power of 80%. A total of 37 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported a sample size calculation (17%). Of the remaining 31 studies, 5 explicitly stated a primary outcome (14%). The mean type II error (beta error) was 82%. The spine surgical literature is plagued with a high potential for type II error. A trial’s methodology should be scrutinized to prevent misinterpretation of the results.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized TrialsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2001
- CONSORT: An Evolving Tool to Help Improve the Quality of Reports of Randomized Controlled TrialsJAMA, 1998
- Beyond CONSORT: Need for Improved Reporting Standards for Clinical TrialsJAMA, 1998
- Type II (β) errors in the hand literature: The importance of powerThe Journal of Hand Surgery, 1998
- Empowering research: statistical power in general practice researchFamily Practice, 1997
- Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled TrialsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 1996
- Statistical significance and statistical power in hypothesis testingJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 1990
- The beta error and sample size determination in clinical trials in emergency medicineAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 1987
- Beta, or type II error in psychiatric controlled clinical trialsJournal of Psychiatric Research, 1985
- Reporting on Methods in Clinical TrialsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1982