Post Hoc Power Analysis: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed?
Top Cited Papers
- 1 April 2001
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy
- Vol. 21 (4) , 405-409
- https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.21.5.405.34503
Abstract
Using a hypothetical scenario typifying the experience that authors have when submitting manuscripts that report results of negative clinical trials, the pitfalls of a post hoc analysis are illustrated. We used the same scenario to explain how confidence intervals are used in interpreting results of clinical trials. We showed that confidence intervals better inform readers about the possibility of an inadequate sample size than do post hoc power calculations.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Allelic, genotypic and phenotypic distributions of S-mephenytoin 4???-hydroxylase (CYP2C19) in healthy Caucasian populations of European descent throughout the worldPharmacogenetics, 1999
- Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 2: The Bayes FactorAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1999
- The Use of Predicted Confidence Intervals When Planning Experiments and the Misuse of Power When Interpreting ResultsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1994
- Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trialsPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1994
- Confidence Limit Analyses Should Replace Power Calculations in the Interpretation of Epidemiologic StudiesEpidemiology, 1992
- Some issues in the design and interpretation of 'negative' clinical studiesArchives of internal medicine (1960), 1986
- When Was a 'Negative' Clinical Trial Big Enough?Archives of internal medicine (1960), 1985
- When was a "negative" clinical trial big enough? How many patients you needed depends on what you foundArchives of internal medicine (1960), 1985
- Approaches to sample size estimation in the design of clinical trials—a reviewStatistics in Medicine, 1984
- The Importance of Beta, the Type II Error and Sample Size in the Design and Interpretation of the Randomized Control TrialNew England Journal of Medicine, 1978