Skip to main content

Statistical Tables For Testing Data Closer To Expectation Than Compatible With Random Sampling

  • Chapter
Statistics Applied to Clinical Trials
  • 3737 Accesses

A p-value <0.05 is generally used as a cut-off level to indicate a significant difference from what we expect. A p-value of > 0.05, then, indicates no significant difference. The larger the p-value the smaller the chance of a difference. A p-value of 1.00 means 0 % chance of a difference, while a p-value of 0.95 means a chance of difference close to 0. A p-value of > 0.95 literally means that we have > 95 per cent chance of finding a result less close to expectation, which means a chance of < (1-0.95) , i.e., < 0.05 of finding a result this close or closer. Using the traditional 5 per cent decision level, this would mean, that we have a strong argument that such data are not completely random. The example from the previous chapter is used once more. In a Mendelian experiment the expected ratio of yellow-peas/-green peas is 1/1. A highly representative random sample of n = 100 might consist of 50 yellow and 50 green peas. However, the larger the sample the smaller the chance of finding exactly fifty / fifty. The chance of exactly 5000 yellow / 5000 green peas or even the chance of a result very close to this result is, due to large variability in biological processes, almost certainly zero. In a sample of 10,000 peas, you might find 4997 yellow and 5003 green peas. What is the chance of finding a result this close to expectation? A chi-square test produces here a p > 0.95 of finding a result less close, and consequently, < 0.05 of finding a result this close or closer. Using the 5% decision level, this would mean, that we have a strong argument that these data are not completely random. The example is actually based on some true historic facts, Mendel improved his data.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cleophas TJ, Cleophas GM. Sponsored research and continuing medical education. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 286: 302–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cleophas TJ. Research data closer to expectation than compatible with random sampling. Stat Med 2004; 23: 1015–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Julius S. The ALLHAT study: if you believe in evidence-based medicine, stick to it. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 453–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cleophas GM, Cleophas TJ. Clinical trials in jeopardy. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003; 41: 51–6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2009). Statistical Tables For Testing Data Closer To Expectation Than Compatible With Random Sampling. In: Cleophas, T.J., Zwinderman, A.H., Cleophas, T.F., Cleophas, E.P. (eds) Statistics Applied to Clinical Trials. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9523-8_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics