Skip to main content

Statistics in Experimental Stroke Research: From Sample Size Calculation to Data Description and Significance Testing

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Rodent Models of Stroke

Part of the book series: Neuromethods ((NM,volume 47))

  • 1095 Accesses

Abstract

Experimental stroke researchers take samples from populations (e.g., certain mouse strains), and make inferences about unknown parameters (e.g., infarct sizes, outcomes). They use statistics to describe their data, and they seek formal ways to decide whether their hypotheses are true (“Compound X is a neuroprotectant”). Unfortunately, experimental stroke research at present lacks statistical rigor in designing and analyzing its results, and this may have negative consequences for its predictiveness. This chapter aims at giving a general introduction into the do’s and don’t’s of statistical analysis in experimental stroke research. In particular, we will discuss how to design an experimental series and calculate necessary sample sizes, how to describe data with graphics and numbers, and how to apply and interpret formal tests for statistical significance. A surprising conclusion will be that there are no formal ways of deciding whether a hypothesis is correct or not and that we should focus instead on biological (or clinical) significance as measured in the size of an effect and on the implications of this effect for the biological system or organism. “Good evidence” that a hypothesized effect is real comes from replication across multiple studies; it cannot be inferred from the result of a single statistical test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bederson JB, Pitts LH, Tsuji M, Nishimura MC, Davis RL, Bartkowski H (1986) Rat middle cerebral artery occlusion: evaluation of the model and development of a neurologic examination. Stroke 17:472–476

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buchan A, Pulsinelli WA (1990) Hypothermia but not the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist, MK-801, attenuates neuronal damage in gerbils subjected to transient global ischemia. J Neurosci 10:311–316

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hunt H (2008) Boxplots in Excel, 15 October 2008, http://www.coventry.ac.uk/ec/∼nhunt/boxplot.htm. Accessed 5 Feb 2009

  4. Harlow LL, Mulaik SA, Steiger JH (eds) (1997) What if there were no significance tests? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. O‘Hagan A, Luce R (2003) A primer on Bayesian statistics in health econonomics and outcomes research. http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/55/92/primer.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2009

  6. Sterne JAC, Smith GD (2001) Sifting the evidence – what’s wrong with significance tests? Br Med J 322:226–231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ziliak ST, McCloskey DN (2008) The cult of statistical significance: how the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Univ of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kirk RE (1996) Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educ Psychol Measur 56:746–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Curran-Everett D, Benos DJ (2004) Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American physiological society. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 287:R247–R249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dirnagl U (2006) Bench to bedside: the quest for quality in experimental stroke research. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 26:1465–1478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. G*Power 3, 12 December 2008 http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/G*Power3/, Accessed 5 Feb 2009

  12. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE (1997) Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In: Harlow L, Mulaik SA, Steiger JH (eds) What if there were no significance tests? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 37–64

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mulaik SA, Raju NS, Harshman RA (1997) There is a time and a place for significance testing. In: Harlow L, Mulaik SA, Steiger JH (eds) What if there were no significance tests? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 66–115

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8):e124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Oakes M (1986) Statistical inference. John Wiley, UK

    Google Scholar 

  16. Li X, Blizzard KK, Zeng Z, DeVries AC, Hurn PD, McCullough LD (2004) Chronic behavioral testing after focal ischemia in the mouse: functional recovery and the effects of gender. Exp Neurol 187:94–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Plesnila N, Zinkel S, Le DA, Amin-Hanjani S, Wu Y, Qiu J, Chiarugi A, Thomas SS, Kohane DS, Korsmeyer SJ, Moskowitz MA (2001) BID mediates neuronal cell death after oxygen/ glucose deprivation and focal cerebral ischemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:15318–15323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Emerson JD, Moses LE (1985) A note on the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test for 2× k ordered tables. Biometrics 41:303–309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  20. Division of biostatistics. (1999) Power and sample size programs. December 1999, last updated October 2006 http://www.epibiostat.ucsf.edu/biostat/sampsize.html. Accessed 18 Feb 2009

  21. Simon S (2000) Sample size for the Mann–Whitney U test, 28 September 2000, last modified 14 July 2008 http://www.childrensmercy.org/stats/size/mann.asp Accessed 15 Feb 2009

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Humana Press

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Dirnagl, U. (2010). Statistics in Experimental Stroke Research: From Sample Size Calculation to Data Description and Significance Testing. In: Dirnagl, U. (eds) Rodent Models of Stroke. Neuromethods, vol 47. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-750-1_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-750-1_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-60761-749-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60761-750-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics