Confusion about Negative Studies

Kay Dickersin, Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe, Marcia Angell

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

To the Editor: As Angell notes,1 a study that is well designed and conducted makes a positive contribution to biomedical knowledge; thus, it seems wrong to call it a “negative study.” Others have requested that similar terms not be used,2 I believe with good cause. What one is really concerned with is the study results, for which the term “negative study” is too broad. Generally speaking, one can obtain one of five possible results in testing a single hypothesis: (1) a “positive” association between factors of interest (in favor of the test hypothesis) that is “statistically significant,” (2) a “positive”.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1084-1085
Number of pages2
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume322
Issue number15
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 12 1990
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Confusion about Negative Studies. / Dickersin, Kay; Tunstall-Pedoe, Hugh; Angell, Marcia.

In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 322, No. 15, 12.04.1990, p. 1084-1085.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Dickersin, Kay ; Tunstall-Pedoe, Hugh ; Angell, Marcia. / Confusion about Negative Studies. In: New England Journal of Medicine. 1990 ; Vol. 322, No. 15. pp. 1084-1085.
@article{9e440e750e9b46f689a0ae08575418bb,
title = "Confusion about Negative Studies",
abstract = "To the Editor: As Angell notes,1 a study that is well designed and conducted makes a positive contribution to biomedical knowledge; thus, it seems wrong to call it a “negative study.” Others have requested that similar terms not be used,2 I believe with good cause. What one is really concerned with is the study results, for which the term “negative study” is too broad. Generally speaking, one can obtain one of five possible results in testing a single hypothesis: (1) a “positive” association between factors of interest (in favor of the test hypothesis) that is “statistically significant,” (2) a “positive”.",
author = "Kay Dickersin and Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe and Marcia Angell",
year = "1990",
month = "4",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1056/NEJM199004123221514",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "322",
pages = "1084--1085",
journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0028-4793",
publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",
number = "15",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Confusion about Negative Studies

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Tunstall-Pedoe, Hugh

AU - Angell, Marcia

PY - 1990/4/12

Y1 - 1990/4/12

N2 - To the Editor: As Angell notes,1 a study that is well designed and conducted makes a positive contribution to biomedical knowledge; thus, it seems wrong to call it a “negative study.” Others have requested that similar terms not be used,2 I believe with good cause. What one is really concerned with is the study results, for which the term “negative study” is too broad. Generally speaking, one can obtain one of five possible results in testing a single hypothesis: (1) a “positive” association between factors of interest (in favor of the test hypothesis) that is “statistically significant,” (2) a “positive”.

AB - To the Editor: As Angell notes,1 a study that is well designed and conducted makes a positive contribution to biomedical knowledge; thus, it seems wrong to call it a “negative study.” Others have requested that similar terms not be used,2 I believe with good cause. What one is really concerned with is the study results, for which the term “negative study” is too broad. Generally speaking, one can obtain one of five possible results in testing a single hypothesis: (1) a “positive” association between factors of interest (in favor of the test hypothesis) that is “statistically significant,” (2) a “positive”.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025705946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025705946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJM199004123221514

DO - 10.1056/NEJM199004123221514

M3 - Letter

C2 - 2320072

AN - SCOPUS:0025705946

VL - 322

SP - 1084

EP - 1085

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 15

ER -