A Review of Multiple Hypothesis Testing in Otolaryngology Literature

作者：Kirkham Erin M^*; Weaver Edward M

来源：Laryngoscope, 2015, 125(3): 599-603.

DOI：10.1002/lary.24857

• Multiple testing
• multiple comparisons
• clinical research methodology
• study design
• database
• Bonferroni
• Bonferroni-Holm
• family-wise error rate
• error rate per comparison
• percent error rate

Objectives/HypothesisMultiple hypothesis testing (or multiple testing) refers to testing more than one hypothesis within a single analysis, and can inflate the type I error rate (false positives) within a study. The aim of this review was to quantify multiple testing in recent large clinical studies in the otolaryngology literature and to discuss strategies to address this potential problem.
Data SourcesOriginal clinical research articles with >100 subjects published in 2012 in the four general otolaryngology journals with the highest Journal Citation Reports 5-year impact factors.
Review MethodsArticles were reviewed to determine whether the authors tested greater than five hypotheses in at least one family of inferences. For the articles meeting this criterion for multiple testing, type I error rates were calculated, and statistical correction was applied to the reported results.
ResultsOf the 195 original clinical research articles reviewed, 72% met the criterion for multiple testing. Within these studies, there was a mean 41% chance of a type I error and, on average, 18% of significant results were likely to be false positives. After the Bonferroni correction was applied, only 57% of significant results reported within the articles remained significant.
ConclusionsMultiple testing is common in recent large clinical studies in otolaryngology and deserves closer attention from researchers, reviewers, and editors. Strategies for adjusting for multiple testing are discussed.

• 出版日期2015-3