Anaes · Measurement & monitoring physics
Hypothesis testing, p-values, confidence intervals and error
Also known as Hypothesis testing · p-values · Confidence intervals · Type I and Type II error · Statistical power · Sample size · Multiple testing · Effect size
Every anaesthetic trial asks whether a difference between two groups is real or the product of chance, and the framework that answers that question is hypothesis testing. The model rests on seven exam-critical ideas. First, the NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0) assumes no difference between groups and is presumed true until the evidence is strong enough to reject it; the ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS (H1) asserts that a difference exists. Second, a TYPE I ERROR (alpha) is a FALSE POSITIVE — rejecting H0 when it is true — conventionally set at 0.05, and the p-value is the probability of the observed data or more extreme data IF H0 is true. Third, a TYPE II ERROR (beta) is a FALSE NEGATIVE — failing to reject H0 when it is false — conventionally set at 0.20. Fourth, POWER is 1 minus beta, the probability of correctly detecting a true difference, conventionally 0.80, and it rises with sample size, effect size and alpha and falls with variability; an underpowered study wastes resources and manufactures false negatives. Fifth, the p-value is widely misused — it is NOT the probability that H0 is true, a p less than 0.05 does not guarantee clinical importance, and multiple comparisons inflate the Type I error rate, corrected by the BONFERRONI method (divide alpha by the number of tests). Sixth, a CONFIDENCE INTERVAL is a range that contains the true population parameter with a specified probability (typically 95 percent), conveying both the effect size and its precision; if the CI crosses 1.0 for a ratio or 0 for a difference the result is not statistically significant. Seventh, the EFFECT SIZE (number needed to treat equals 1 divided by the absolute risk reduction; odds ratio and relative risk as measures of association) tells you HOW BIG a difference is, complementing the p-value which tells you only IF a difference exists; parametric tests (t-test, ANOVA) suit normal data, non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis) suit non-normal data, and chi-squared suits categorical data; survival analysis uses Kaplan-Meier curves, the log-rank test and the hazard ratio for time-to-event outcomes such as time to recovery or time to first analgesic. Built on the Greenland et al. guide to misinterpretations of tests, p-values, confidence intervals and power, the Altman-Gardner confidence-interval paper, the Bender-Lange multiple-testing paper, the Cook-Sackett number-needed-to-treat paper and the Bland-Altman survival papers (Kaplan-Meier, logrank, time-to-event), with applied examples from the emergence-hypertension cohort (Jiao 2026), the hip-arthroplasty cohort (Ali 2026) and the neurological-deterioration prediction review (Chen 2026).
Practise this topic
On this page
Study tools
Your progress
Saved on this device.
Target exams
Red flags
- A TYPE I ERROR (alpha) is a FALSE POSITIVE — rejecting a true null hypothesis — conventionally 0.05. A TYPE II ERROR (beta) is a FALSE NEGATIVE — failing to reject a false null hypothesis — conventionally 0.20.
- POWER equals 1 minus beta, the probability of detecting a true difference, conventionally 0.80. Power rises with sample size and effect size and falls with variability.
- The p-value is the probability of the OBSERVED DATA (or more extreme) IF the null hypothesis is true — it is NOT the probability that the null hypothesis is true, and a p less than 0.05 does not mean the result is clinically important.
- A 95 percent CONFIDENCE INTERVAL conveys both effect size (the point estimate) and precision (the width). If the CI crosses 1.0 for a ratio or 0 for a difference, the result is NOT statistically significant.
- NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT equals 1 divided by the ABSOLUTE risk reduction. The p-value tells you IF a difference exists; the effect size (NNT, odds ratio, relative risk) tells you HOW BIG it is.
- Multiple comparisons inflate the Type I error rate. The BONFERRONI correction divides alpha by the number of tests — reducing false positives at the cost of power. A pre-specified single primary outcome avoids the problem.
Meet the patient
A journal club paper claims a new induction agent reduces postoperative nausea compared with propofol, p equals 0.04. The registrar asks whether you should switch. The confidence interval is wide, the sample is small, and the absolute difference in nausea rates is 2 per cent.[4]
Two questions decide whether this paper changes practice: is the difference real? (the p-value and confidence interval answer this) and is it big enough to matter? (the effect size answers this). A p-value of 0.04 in a small sample with a tiny absolute benefit is statistically significant but clinically trivial — and that distinction is the heart of this topic.[4][7]
References10ShowHide
- [1]Jiao SS, et al. Risk factors for unanticipated hypertension during emergence from general anesthesia in elderly surgical patients: A retrospective cohort analysis Medicine (Baltimore), 2026.PMID 42363520
- [2]Ali U, et al. Outcomes of lateral and posterior approaches in hip arthroplasty: A cohort from low-middle-income country J Pak Med Assoc, 2026.PMID 42363370
- [3]Chen Y, et al. Risk prediction models for early neurological deterioration after intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Neurol, 2026.PMID 42363152
- [4]Greenland S, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol, 2016.PMID 27209009
- [5]Altman DG, Gardner MJ Confidence intervals for research findings. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1992.PMID 1554681
- [6]Bender R, Lange S Adjusting for multiple testing--when and how? J Clin Epidemiol, 2001.PMID 11297884
- [7]Cook RJ, Sackett DL The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ, 1995.PMID 7873954
- [8]Bland JM, Altman DG Survival probabilities (the Kaplan-Meier method). BMJ, 1998.PMID 9836663
- [9]Bland JM, Altman DG The logrank test. BMJ, 2004.PMID 15117797
- [10]Altman DG, Bland JM Time to event (survival) data. BMJ, 1998.PMID 9703534