Sprenger, Jan and Stegenga, Jacob (2017) Three Arguments for Absolute Outcome Measures. In: UNSPECIFIED.

Preview

Text Sprenger+Stegenga Outcome Measures final.pdf Download (123kB) | Preview

Abstract

Data from medical research is typically summarized with various types of outcome measures. We present three arguments in favor of absolute over relative outcome measures. The first argument is from cognitive bias: relative measures promote the reference class fallacy and the overestimation of treatment effectiveness. The second argument is decision-theoretic: absolute measures are superior to relative measures for making a decision between interventions. The third argument is causal: interpreted as
measures of causal strength, absolute measures satisfy a set of desirable properties, but relative measures don't. Absolute outcome measures outperform relative measures on all counts.

---

Export/Citation:

EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Conference or Workshop Item (UNSPECIFIED)
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Sprenger, Jan j.sprenger@uvt.nl Stegenga, Jacob jms303@cam.ac.uk
Keywords:	evidence-based medicine; outcome measures; causality; cognitive bias; risk in medicine
Subjects:	General Issues > Data General Issues > Causation General Issues > Decision Theory Specific Sciences > Medicine Specific Sciences > Probability/Statistics
Depositing User:	Jan Sprenger
Date Deposited:	08 Feb 2017 18:04
Last Modified:	08 Feb 2017 18:04
Item ID:	12801
Subjects:	General Issues > Data General Issues > Causation General Issues > Decision Theory Specific Sciences > Medicine Specific Sciences > Probability/Statistics
Date:	2017
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/12801

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item