Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) logoLink to British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.)
. 1986 Mar 15;292(6522):746–750. doi: 10.1136/bmj.292.6522.746

Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing.

M J Gardner, D G Altman
PMCID: PMC1339793  PMID: 3082422

Abstract

Overemphasis on hypothesis testing--and the use of P values to dichotomise significant or non-significant results--has detracted from more useful approaches to interpreting study results, such as estimation and confidence intervals. In medical studies investigators are usually interested in determining the size of difference of a measured outcome between groups, rather than a simple indication of whether or not it is statistically significant. Confidence intervals present a range of values, on the basis of the sample data, in which the population value for such a difference may lie. Some methods of calculating confidence intervals for means and differences between means are given, with similar information for proportions. The paper also gives suggestions for graphical display. Confidence intervals, if appropriate to the type of study, should be used for major findings in both the main text of a paper and its abstract.

Full text

PDF
746

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman D. G., Gore S. M., Gardner M. J., Pocock S. J. Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 May 7;286(6376):1489–1493. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6376.1489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman D. G. Statistics and ethics in medical research. VI--Presentation of results. Br Med J. 1980 Dec 6;281(6254):1542–1544. doi: 10.1136/bmj.281.6254.1542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Altman D. G. Statistics in medical journals. Stat Med. 1982 Jan-Mar;1(1):59–71. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780010109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Feinstein A. R. Clinical biostatistics. XXXVII. Demeaned errors, confidence games, nonplussed minuses, inefficient coefficients, and other statistical disruptions of scientific communication. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1976 Nov;20(5):617–631. doi: 10.1002/cpt1976205617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gardner M. J. Letter: Understanding and presenting variation. Lancet. 1975 Jan 25;1(7900):230–231. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(75)91414-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jones D. R., Rushton L. Simultaneous inference in epidemiological studies. Int J Epidemiol. 1982 Sep;11(3):276–282. doi: 10.1093/ije/11.3.276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kannel W. B., McGee D. L. Diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors: the Framingham study. Circulation. 1979 Jan;59(1):8–13. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.59.1.8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mainland D. Statistical ritual in clinical journals: is there a cure?--I. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Mar 17;288(6420):841–843. doi: 10.1136/bmj.288.6420.841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rothman K. J. A show of confidence. N Engl J Med. 1978 Dec 14;299(24):1362–1363. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197812142992410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Medical Journal (Clinical research ed.) are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES