Cargando…

P values: from suggestion to superstition

A threshold probability value of ‘p≤0.05’ is commonly used in clinical investigations to indicate statistical significance. To allow clinicians to better understand evidence generated by research studies, this review defines the p value, summarizes the historical origins of the p value approach to h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Concato, John, Hartigan, John A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27489256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jim-2016-000206
_version_ 1782465901210107904
author Concato, John
Hartigan, John A
author_facet Concato, John
Hartigan, John A
author_sort Concato, John
collection PubMed
description A threshold probability value of ‘p≤0.05’ is commonly used in clinical investigations to indicate statistical significance. To allow clinicians to better understand evidence generated by research studies, this review defines the p value, summarizes the historical origins of the p value approach to hypothesis testing, describes various applications of p≤0.05 in the context of clinical research and discusses the emergence of p≤5×10(−8) and other values as thresholds for genomic statistical analyses. Corresponding issues include a conceptual approach of evaluating whether data do not conform to a null hypothesis (ie, no exposure–outcome association). Importantly, and in the historical context of when p≤0.05 was first proposed, the 1-in-20 chance of a false-positive inference (ie, falsely concluding the existence of an exposure–outcome association) was offered only as a suggestion. In current usage, however, p≤0.05 is often misunderstood as a rigid threshold, sometimes with a misguided ‘win’ (p≤0.05) or ‘lose’ (p>0.05) approach. Also, in contemporary genomic studies, a threshold of p≤10(−8) has been endorsed as a boundary for statistical significance when analyzing numerous genetic comparisons for each participant. A value of p≤0.05, or other thresholds, should not be employed reflexively to determine whether a clinical research investigation is trustworthy from a scientific perspective. Rather, and in parallel with conceptual issues of validity and generalizability, quantitative results should be interpreted using a combined assessment of strength of association, p values, CIs, and sample size.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5099183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50991832016-11-14 P values: from suggestion to superstition Concato, John Hartigan, John A J Investig Med Research Tools and Issues A threshold probability value of ‘p≤0.05’ is commonly used in clinical investigations to indicate statistical significance. To allow clinicians to better understand evidence generated by research studies, this review defines the p value, summarizes the historical origins of the p value approach to hypothesis testing, describes various applications of p≤0.05 in the context of clinical research and discusses the emergence of p≤5×10(−8) and other values as thresholds for genomic statistical analyses. Corresponding issues include a conceptual approach of evaluating whether data do not conform to a null hypothesis (ie, no exposure–outcome association). Importantly, and in the historical context of when p≤0.05 was first proposed, the 1-in-20 chance of a false-positive inference (ie, falsely concluding the existence of an exposure–outcome association) was offered only as a suggestion. In current usage, however, p≤0.05 is often misunderstood as a rigid threshold, sometimes with a misguided ‘win’ (p≤0.05) or ‘lose’ (p>0.05) approach. Also, in contemporary genomic studies, a threshold of p≤10(−8) has been endorsed as a boundary for statistical significance when analyzing numerous genetic comparisons for each participant. A value of p≤0.05, or other thresholds, should not be employed reflexively to determine whether a clinical research investigation is trustworthy from a scientific perspective. Rather, and in parallel with conceptual issues of validity and generalizability, quantitative results should be interpreted using a combined assessment of strength of association, p values, CIs, and sample size. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-10 2016-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5099183/ /pubmed/27489256 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jim-2016-000206 Text en Copyright © 2016 American Federation for Medical Research This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Research Tools and Issues
Concato, John
Hartigan, John A
P values: from suggestion to superstition
title P values: from suggestion to superstition
title_full P values: from suggestion to superstition
title_fullStr P values: from suggestion to superstition
title_full_unstemmed P values: from suggestion to superstition
title_short P values: from suggestion to superstition
title_sort p values: from suggestion to superstition
topic Research Tools and Issues
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27489256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jim-2016-000206
work_keys_str_mv AT concatojohn pvaluesfromsuggestiontosuperstition
AT hartiganjohna pvaluesfromsuggestiontosuperstition