Statistically significant differences versus convincing evidence of real treatment effects: an analysis of the false positive risk for single-centre trials in anaesthesia.

Background: The American Statistical Association has highlighted problems with null hypothesis significance testing and outlined alternative approaches that may 'supplement or even replace P-values'. One alternative is to report the false positive risk (FPR), which quantifies the chance the null hypothesis is true when the result is statistically significant.

Methods: We reviewed single-centre, randomised trials in 10 anaesthesia journals over 6 yr where differences in a primary binary outcome were statistically significant.

A single-centre, randomised controlled feasibility pilot trial comparing performance of direct laryngoscopy versus videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in surgical patients.

Introduction: Most trials comparing effectiveness of laryngoscopy technique use surrogate endpoints. Intubation success is a more appropriate endpoint for comparing effectiveness of techniques or devices. A large pragmatic clinical trial powered for intubation success has not yet been performed.