-
No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons.
Adjustments for making multiple comparisons in large bodies of data are recommended to avoid rejecting the null hypothesis too readily. Unfortunately, reducing the type I error for null associations increases the type II error for those associations that are not null. The theoretical basis for advocating a routine adjustment for multiple comparisons is the "universal null hypothesis" that "chance" serves as the first-order explanation for observed phenomena. This hypothesis undermines the basic premises of empirical research, which holds that nature follows regular laws that may be studied through observations. A policy of not making adjustments for multiple comparisons is preferable because it will lead to fewer errors of interpretation when the data under evaluation are not random numbers but actual observations on nature. Furthermore, scientists should not be so reluctant to explore leads that may turn out to be wrong that they penalize themselves by missing possibly important findings.
PMID: 2081237 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-
Cited by 76 PubMed Central articles
-
The incidence risk, clustering, and clinical presentation of La Crosse virus infections in the eastern United States, 2003-2007.
Haddow AD, Odoi A.
PLoS One. 2009 Jul 3; 4(7):e6145. Epub 2009 Jul 3.
[PLoS One. 2009]
-
Measured body mass index, body weight perception, dissatisfaction and control practices in urban, low-income African American adolescents.
Wang Y, Liang H, Chen X.
BMC Public Health. 2009 Jun 12; 9:183. Epub 2009 Jun 12.
[BMC Public Health. 2009]
-
Effect of fenofibrate on amputation events in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (FIELD study): a prespecified analysis of a randomised controlled trial.
Rajamani K, Colman PG, Li LP, Best JD, Voysey M, D'Emden MC, Laakso M, Baker JR, Keech AC, FIELD study investigators.
Lancet. 2009 May 23; 373(9677):1780-8.
[Lancet. 2009]
- » See all...