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
SN - 0028-4793
VL - 322
SP - 1084
EP - 1085
JO - New England Journal of Medicine
JF - New England Journal of Medicine
IS - 15
ER -