Editorial

Statistical significance and p-values

guidelines for use and reporting

CrossMark

Nick Parsons

Associate Professor of Medical Statistics

Correspondence should be sent to N. Parsons; email:

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Statistics and Epidemiology Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Search for more papers by this author

Richard Carey-Smith

Professor

Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Perth, Australia.

Search for more papers by this author

Melina Dritsaki

Senior Health Economist

Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Search for more papers by this author

Xavier Griffin

Associate Professor of Trauma Surgery

Oxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Search for more papers by this author

David Metcalfe

Clinical Research Fellow in Musculoskeletal Trauma

Oxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Search for more papers by this author

Daniel Perry

Associate Professor, Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery

Oxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Search for more papers by this author

Dirk Stengel

Head of Department

Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Centre for Clinical Research, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Search for more papers by this author

Matthew Costa

Professor of Orthopaedic Trauma

Oxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:30 Sep 2019https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B10.BJJ-2019-0890

View article

References

1. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2:e124. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
2. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false: author’s reply to Goodman and Greenland. PLoS Med 2007;4:e215. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
3. Goodman S, Greenland S. Why most published research findings are false: problems in the analysis. PLoS Med 2007;4:e168. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
4. Berry D. A p-value to die for. J Am Stat Assoc 2017;112:895–897. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
5. Briggs W. The substitute for p-values. J Am Stat Assoc 2017;112:897–898. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
6. Gelman A, Carlin J. Some natural solutions to the p-value communication problem-and why they won’t work. J Am Stat Assoc 2017;112:899–901. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
7. Laber EB, Shedden K. Statistical significance and the dichotomization of evidence: the relevance of the ASA Statement on Statistical Significance and p-values for Statisticians. J Am Stat Assoc 2017;112:902–904. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
8. McShane BB, Gal D. Rejoinder: Statistical significance and the dichotomization of evidence. J Am Stat Assoc 2017;112:904–908. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
9. McShane BB, Gal D. Statistical significance and the dichotomization of evidence. J Am Stat Assoc 2017;112:885–895. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
10. Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. Am Stat 2019;73(Supp 1):1–19. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
11. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res 2015;116:116–126. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
12. Colquhoun D. The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of p-values. R Soc Open Sci 2017;4:171085. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
13. Colquhoun D. Correction to ‘The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of p-values’. R Soc Open Sci 2018;5:180100. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
14. Goodman SN, Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA. What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Transl Med 2016;8:341ps12. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
15. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Retire statistical significance. Nature 2019;567:305–307. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
16. Fisher RA. Statistical Methods, Experimental Design, and Scientific Inference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Google Scholar
17. Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A, Contain Pap Math Phys Character 1933;231:289–337. Google Scholar
18. Lehmann EL. The Fisher, Neyman-Pearson theories of testing hypotheses: one theory or two? J Am Stat Assoc 1993;88:1242–1249. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
19. Lenhard J. Models and statistical inference: the controversy between Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Br J Philos Sci 2006;57:69–91. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
20. Wasserstein R, Lazar N. The ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. Am Stat 2016;70:129–131. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
21. Ionides E, Giessing A, Ritov Y, Page S. Response to the ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. Am Stat 2017;71:88–89. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
22. Matthews R, Wasserstein R, Spiegelhalter D. The ASA’s p -value statement, one year on. Significance 2017;14:38–41. Crossref, Google Scholar
23. Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions MD. The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol 2015;13:e1002106. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
24. Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall PH. Multiple Comparisons Using R. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011. Google Scholar
25. Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1990;1:43–46. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
26. Dmitrienko A. Special issue: multiplicity issues in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 2018;28:1–2. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
27. Dmitrienko A, D’Agostino RB Sr. Multiplicity considerations in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2018;378:2115–2122. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
28. Benjamin DJ, Berger JO, Johannesson M, et al. Redefine statistical significance. Nat Hum Behav 2018;2:6–10. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
29. Fadista J, Manning AK, Florez JC, Groop L. The (in)famous GWAS P-value threshold revisited and updated for low-frequency variants. Eur J Hum Genet 2016;24:1202–1205. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
30. Tukey JW. We need both exploratory and confirmatory. Am Stat 1980;34:23–25. ISI, Google Scholar
31. Altman DG. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ 1996;313:570–571. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
32. Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:73–79. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar
33. Parsons N, Griffin XL, Stengel D, et al. Standardised effect sizes in clinical research: how to compare shoulder surgeons with hip surgeons. Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–854. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
34. Perry DC, Griffin XL, Dritsaki M, et al. Becoming confident about confidence intervals. Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:563–565. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
35. Parsons NR, Perry DC, Costa ML. All interventions differ, although some are more different than others. Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1123–1124. Link, ISI, Google Scholar
36. No authors listed. Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research. EQUATOR Network. http://www.equator-network.org (date last accessed 9 August 2019). Google Scholar
37. Spiegelhalter D. Trust in numbers. J R Stat Soc A 2017;180:948–965. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar

Vol. 101-B, No. 10

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 688 times

History

Published online 30 September 2019

Published in print 1 October 2019

Information

PDF download