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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |