Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=27489256
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\27489256
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 J+Investig+Med
2016 ; 64
(7
): 1166-71
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
P values: from suggestion to superstition
#MMPMID27489256
Concato J
; Hartigan JA
J Investig Med
2016[Oct]; 64
(7
): 1166-71
PMID27489256
show ga
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.
free
free
free
