Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 24, 2026
Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Error Rates, Decisive Outcomes and Publication Bias with Several Inferential Methods
Will G Hopkins1, Alan M Batterham2
1Institute of Sport Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. will@clear.net.nz.
Background:
Statistical methods for inferring the true magnitude of an effect from a sample should have acceptable error rates when the true effect is trivial (type I rates) or substantial (type II rates).
Objective:
The objective of this study was to quantify the error rates, rates of decisive (publishable) outcomes and publication bias of five inferential methods commonly used in sports medicine and science. The methods were conventional null-hypothesis significance testing [NHST] (significant and non-significant imply substantial and trivial true effects, respectively); conservative NHST (the observed magnitude is interpreted as the true magnitude only for significant effects); non-clinical magnitude-based inference [MBI] (the true magnitude is interpreted as the magnitude range of the 90 % confidence interval only for intervals not spanning substantial values of the opposite sign); clinical MBI (a possibly beneficial effect is recommended for implementation only if it is most unlikely to be harmful); and odds-ratio clinical MBI (implementation is also recommended when the odds of benefit outweigh the odds of harm, with an odds ratio >66).
Methods:
Simulation was used to quantify standardized mean effects in 500,000 randomized, controlled trials each for true standardized magnitudes ranging from null through marginally moderate with three sample sizes: suboptimal (10 + 10), optimal for MBI (50 + 50) and optimal for NHST (144 + 144).
Results:
Type I rates for non-clinical MBI were always lower than for NHST. When type I rates for clinical MBI were higher, most errors were debatable, given the probabilistic qualification of those inferences (unlikely or possibly beneficial). NHST often had unacceptable rates for either type II errors or decisive outcomes, and it had substantial publication bias with the smallest sample size, whereas MBI had no such problems.
Conclusion:
MBI is a trustworthy, nuanced alternative to NHST, which it outperforms in terms of the sample size, error rates, decision rates and publication bias.
Related Concept Videos
01:22Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
01:14Errors In Hypothesis Tests
01:13Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:14Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies