TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of the Use of P Values in Neurosurgical Literature
T2 - from Statistical Significance to Clinical Irrelevance
AU - Verploegh, Iris S.C.
AU - Lazar, Nicole A.
AU - Bartels, Ronald H.M.A.
AU - Volovici, Victor
N1 - Funding Information:
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that the article content was composed in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - The application and interpretation of P values have caused debate for several decades, and this debate has become particularly relevant in the past few years. The P value represents the probability of seeing results as extreme or more extreme than those observed in a data analysis, were the null hypothesis and other underlying assumptions to be true. While P values are useful in pointing out where an effect may be present, they have often been misused in an attempt to oversell “statistically significant” findings. As P values rely on the spread and number of measurements, a smaller P value does not necessarily imply a larger effect size, which is better assessed via an effect estimate and confidence interval interpreted in the context of the study. The clinical relevance of a computed P value is context dependent. We investigated the current use of P values in a small sample of recent neurosurgical literature. Only a minority of manuscripts that reported statistical significance described confounder adjustment, or effect sizes. A common, incorrect assumption often observed was that statistical significance equals clinical relevance. To enable correct interpretation of clinical significance, it is crucial that authors describe the clinical implications of their findings.
AB - The application and interpretation of P values have caused debate for several decades, and this debate has become particularly relevant in the past few years. The P value represents the probability of seeing results as extreme or more extreme than those observed in a data analysis, were the null hypothesis and other underlying assumptions to be true. While P values are useful in pointing out where an effect may be present, they have often been misused in an attempt to oversell “statistically significant” findings. As P values rely on the spread and number of measurements, a smaller P value does not necessarily imply a larger effect size, which is better assessed via an effect estimate and confidence interval interpreted in the context of the study. The clinical relevance of a computed P value is context dependent. We investigated the current use of P values in a small sample of recent neurosurgical literature. Only a minority of manuscripts that reported statistical significance described confounder adjustment, or effect sizes. A common, incorrect assumption often observed was that statistical significance equals clinical relevance. To enable correct interpretation of clinical significance, it is crucial that authors describe the clinical implications of their findings.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129427278&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85129427278&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.02.018
DO - 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.02.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 35505545
AN - SCOPUS:85129427278
SN - 1878-8750
VL - 161
SP - 280-283.e3
JO - World neurosurgery
JF - World neurosurgery
ER -