Six Persistent Research Misconceptions

被引:329
作者
Rothman, Kenneth J. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Res Triangle Inst, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[2] Boston Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Boston, MA USA
关键词
study design; data interpretation; epidemiologic methods; representativeness; evaluation of interaction; multiple comparisons; percentile boundaries; statistical significance testing; POSTMENOPAUSAL HORMONE-THERAPY; ESTROGEN PLUS PROGESTIN; PREVENTION; MORTALITY; DISEASE; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-013-2755-z
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Scientific knowledge changes rapidly, but the concepts and methods of the conduct of research change more slowly. To stimulate discussion of outmoded thinking regarding the conduct of research, I list six misconceptions about research that persist long after their flaws have become apparent. The misconceptions are: 1) There is a hierarchy of study designs; randomized trials provide the greatest validity, followed by cohort studies, with case-control studies being least reliable. 2) An essential element for valid generalization is that the study subjects constitute a representative sample of a target population. 3) If a term that denotes the product of two factors in a regression model is not statistically significant, then there is no biologic interaction between those factors. 4) When categorizing a continuous variable, a reasonable scheme for choosing category cut-points is to use percentile-defined boundaries, such as quartiles or quintiles of the distribution. 5) One should always report P values or confidence intervals that have been adjusted for multiple comparisons. 6) Significance testing is useful and important for the interpretation of data. These misconceptions have been perpetuated in journals, classrooms and textbooks. They persist because they represent intellectual shortcuts that avoid more thoughtful approaches to research problems. I hope that calling attention to these misconceptions will spark the debates needed to shelve these outmoded ideas for good.
引用
收藏
页码:1060 / 1064
页数:5
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], NY TIMES
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2001, DIETARY REFERENCE IN, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0899-9007(00)00596-7
[3]   Observational Versus Experimental Studies: What's the Evidence for a Hierarchy? [J].
Concato J. .
NeuroRX, 2004, 1 (3) :341-347
[4]   THE MORTALITY OF DOCTORS IN RELATION TO THEIR SMOKING HABITS - A PRELIMINARY REPORT [J].
DOLL, R ;
HILL, AB .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1954, 1 (4877) :1451-1455
[5]   Estimation of significance thresholds for genomewide association scans [J].
Dudbridge, Frank ;
Gusnanto, Arief .
GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 32 (03) :227-234
[6]   The difference between "significant" and "not significant" is not itself statistically significant [J].
Gelman, Andrew ;
Stern, Hal .
AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 2006, 60 (04) :328-331
[7]   STANDARDIZED REGRESSION-COEFFICIENTS - A FURTHER CRITIQUE AND REVIEW OF SOME ALTERNATIVES [J].
GREENLAND, S ;
MACLURE, M ;
SCHLESSELMAN, JJ ;
POOLE, C ;
MORGENSTERN, H .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1991, 2 (05) :387-392
[8]   EMPIRICAL-BAYES AND SEMI-BAYES APPROACHES TO OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL-HAZARD SURVEILLANCE [J].
GREENLAND, S ;
POOLE, C .
ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 1994, 49 (01) :9-16
[9]   A prospective, observational study of postmenopausal hormone therapy and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease [J].
Grodstein, F ;
Manson, JE ;
Colditz, GA ;
Willett, WC ;
Speizer, FE ;
Stampfer, MJ .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2000, 133 (12) :933-941
[10]   Observational Studies Analyzed Like Randomized Experiments An Application to Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy and Coronary Heart Disease [J].
Hernan, Miguel A. ;
Alonso, Alvaro ;
Logan, Roger ;
Grodstein, Francine ;
Michels, Karin B. ;
Willett, Walter C. ;
Manson, JoAnn E. ;
Robins, James M. .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 19 (06) :766-779