Agreement test of P value versus Bayes factor for sample means comparison: analysis of articles from the Angle Orthodontist journal
Issued Date
2023-12-01
Resource Type
eISSN
14712288
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85148259443
Pubmed ID
36797687
Journal Title
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume
23
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Medical Research Methodology Vol.23 No.1 (2023)
Suggested Citation
Srimaneekarn N., Leelachaikul P., Thiradilok S., Manopatanakul S. Agreement test of P value versus Bayes factor for sample means comparison: analysis of articles from the Angle Orthodontist journal. BMC Medical Research Methodology Vol.23 No.1 (2023). doi:10.1186/s12874-023-01858-z Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/82021
Title
Agreement test of P value versus Bayes factor for sample means comparison: analysis of articles from the Angle Orthodontist journal
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Researchers are cautioned against misinterpreting the conventional P value, especially while implementing the popular t test. Therefore, this study evaluated the agreement between the P value and Bayes factor (BF01) results obtained from a comparison of sample means in published orthodontic articles. Methods: Data pooling was undertaken using the modified PRISMA flow diagram. Per the inclusion criteria applied to The Angle Orthodontist journal for a two-year period (November 2016 to September 2018), all articles that utilised the t test for statistical analysis were selected. The agreement was evaluated between the P value and Bayes factor set at 0.05 and 1, respectively. The percentage of agreement and Kappa coefficient were calculated. Plotting of effect size against P value and BF01 was analysed. Results: From 265 articles, 82 utilised the t test. Of these, only 37 articles met the inclusion criteria. The study identified 793 justifiable t tests (438 independent-sample and 355 dependent-sample t tests) for which the agreement percentage and Kappa coefficient were found to be 93.57% and 0.87, respectively. However, when anecdotal evidence (1/3 < BF01 < 3) was considered, almost half of the studies missed statistical significance. Furthermore, two-thirds of the significantly reported P values (0.01 < P < 0.05; 30 independent-sample and 20 dependent-sample t tests) showed only anecdotal evidence (1/3 < BF01 < 1). Moreover, BF01 indicated moderate evidence (BF01 > 3) for approximately one-third of the total studies, with nonsignificant P values (P > 0.05). Furthermore, accompanying the P values, the effect sizes, especially for studies with independent-sample t tests, were very high with a strong potential to show substantive significance. Although it is best to extend the statistical calculation of a doubted P value (just below 0.05), especially for orthodontic innovation, orthodontists may reach a balanced decision relying on cephalometric measurements. Conclusions: The Kappa coefficient indicated perfect agreement between the two methods. BF01 restricted this judgement to approximately half of them, with two-thirds of these studies showing nonsignificant P values. Simple extensions of statistical calculations, especially effect size and BF01, can be useful and should be considered when finalising statistical analyses, especially for orthodontic studies without cephalometric analysis.