A shift from significance test to hypothesis test through power analysis in medical research.

Medical research literature until recently, exhibited substantial dominance of the Fisher's significance test approach of statistical inference concentrating more on probability of type I error over Neyman-Pearson's hypothesis test considering both probability of type I and II error. Fisher's approach dichotomises results into significant or not significant results with a P value. The Neyman-Pearson's approach talks of acceptance or rejection of null hypothesis. Based on the same theory these two approaches deal with same objective and conclude in their own way. The advancement in computing techniques and availability of statistical software have resulted in increasing application of power calculations in medical research and thereby reporting the result of significance tests in the light of power of the test also. Significance test approach, when it incorporates power analysis contains the essence of hypothesis test approach. It may be safely argued that rising application of power analysis in medical research may have initiated a shift from Fisher's significance test to Neyman-Pearson's hypothesis test procedure.

[1]  S. Goodman,et al.  p values, hypothesis tests, and likelihood: implications for epidemiology of a neglected historical debate. , 1993, American journal of epidemiology.

[2]  M J Campbell,et al.  Clinical significance not statistical significance: a simple Bayesian alternative to p values. , 1998, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[3]  D. Warner,et al.  Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials , 1995 .

[4]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses , 1933 .

[5]  Rory A. Fisher,et al.  Statistical methods and scientific inference. , 1957 .

[6]  Jonathan A C Sterne,et al.  Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  S. Goodman.  Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 1: The P Value Fallacy , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  E. Lehmann.  The Fisher, Neyman-Pearson Theories of Testing Hypotheses: One Theory or Two? , 1993 .

[9]  A R Feinstein,et al.  P-values and confidence intervals: two sides of the same unsatisfactory coin. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  R J Lilford,et al.  For Debate: The statistical basis of public policy: a paradigm shift is overdue , 1996, BMJ.

[11]  D G Altman,et al.  Transfer of technology from statistical journals to the biomedical literature. Past trends and future predictions. , 1994, JAMA.

[12]  M. Kendall.  Statistical Methods for Research Workers , 1937, Nature.