Abstract:Biomedical research is seldom done with entire populations but rather with samples drawn from a population. Although we work with samples, our goal is to describe and draw inferences regarding the underlying population. It is possible to use a sample statistic and estimates of error in the sample to get a fair idea of the population parameter, not as a single value, but as a range of values. This range is the confidence interval (CI) which is estimated on the basis of a desired confidence level. Calculation of the CI of a sample statistic takes the general form: CI = Point estimate ± Margin of error, where the margin of error is given by the product of a critical value (z) derived from the standard normal curve and the standard error of point estimate. Calculation of the standard error varies depending on whether the sample statistic of interest is a mean, proportion, odds ratio (OR), and so on. The factors affecting the width of the CI include the desired confidence level, the sample size and the variability in the sample. Although the 95% CI is most often used in biomedical research, a CI can be calculated for any level of confidence. A 99% CI will be wider than 95% CI for the same sample. Conflict between clinical importance and statistical significance is an important issue in biomedical research. Clinical importance is best inferred by looking at the effect size, that is how much is the actual change or difference. However, statistical significance in terms of P only suggests whether there is any difference in probability terms. Use of the CI supplements the P value by providing an estimate of actual clinical effect. Of late, clinical trials are being designed specifically as superiority, non-inferiority or equivalence studies. The conclusions from these alternative trial designs are based on CI values rather than the P value from intergroup comparison.

The accuracy of confidence intervals for field normalised indicators

Confidence intervals for normalised citation counts: Can they delimit underlying research capability?

Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation

More Precise Methods for National Research Citation Impact Comparisons

The precision of the arithmetic mean, geometric mean and percentiles for citation data: An experimental simulation modelling approach

Confidence Intervals for the Probability of Superiority Effect Size Measure and the Area Under a Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve

Comparison of the h-index for Different Fields of Research Using Bootstrap Methodology

Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs

Normalization at the Field Level: Fractional Counting of Citations

Using the confidence interval confidently

Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator

Normalization of zero-inflated data: An empirical analysis of a new indicator family

How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators

A Monte Carlo Study of Confidence Interval Methods for Generalizability Coefficient.

Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods

How Can Journal Impact Factors Be Normalized Across Fields of Science? an Assessment in Terms of Percentile Ranks and Fractional Counts

Normalization of zero-inflated data: An empirical analysis of a new indicator family and its use with altmetrics data

Calculation of confidence intervals for simulation output

Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?

Lifting the crown—citation z-score

Sensitivity and specificity of normality tests and consequences on reference interval accuracy at small sample size: a computer-simulation study