Monte carlo simulations comparing fisher exact test and unequal variances t test for analysis of differences between groups in brief hospital lengths of stay

8Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We examined type I and II error rates for analysis of (1) mean hospital length of stay (LOS) versus (2) percentage of hospital LOS that are overnight. These 2 end points are suitable for when LOS is treated as a secondary economic end point. METHODS: We repeatedly resampled LOS for 5052 discharges of thoracoscopic wedge resections and lung lobectomy at 26 hospitals. RESULTS: Unequal variances t test (Welch method) and Fisher exact test both were conservative (ie, type I error rate less than nominal level). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was included as a comparator; the type I error rates did not differ from the nominal level of 0.05 or 0.01. Fisher exact test was more powerful than the unequal variances t test at detecting differences among hospitals; estimated odds ratio for obtaining P < .05 with Fisher exact test versus unequal variances t test = 1.94, with 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.01. Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney had comparable statistical power in terms of differentiating LOS between hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: For studies with LOS to be used as a secondary end point of economic interest, there is currently considerable interest in the planned analysis being for the percentage of patients suitable for ambulatory surgery (ie, hospital LOS equals 0 or 1 midnight). Our results show that there need not be a loss of statistical power when groups are compared using this binary end point, as compared with either Welch method or Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dexter, F., Bayman, E. O., & Dexter, E. U. (2017). Monte carlo simulations comparing fisher exact test and unequal variances t test for analysis of differences between groups in brief hospital lengths of stay. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 125(6), 2141–2145. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002428

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free