Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 715, Cerqueira César, CEP 01246-904, São Paulo, SP, 01246-904, Brazil.
Laboratório de Inferência Causal em Epidemiologia da Universidade de São Paulo (LINCE-USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Jun 3;20(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01030-x.
There is a growing trend in using the "statistically significant" term in the scientific literature. However, harsh criticism of this concept motivated the recommendation to withdraw its use of scientific publications. We aimed to validate the support and the feasibility of adherence to this recommendation, among researchers having declared in favor of removing the statistical significance.
We surveyed signatories of an article published that defended this recommendation, to validate their opinion and ask them about how likely they will retire the concept of statistical significance.
We obtained 151 responses which confirmed the support for the mentioned publication in aspects such as the adequate interpretation of the p-value, the degree of agreement, and the motivations to sign it. However, there was a wide distribution of answers about how likely are they to use the concept of "statistical significance" in future publications. About 42% declared being neutral, or that would likely use it again. We described arguments referred by several signatories and discussed aspects to be considered in the interpretation of research results.
The responses obtained from a proportion of signatories validated their declared position against the use of statistical significance. However, even in this group, the full application of this recommendation does not seem feasible. The arguments related to the inappropriate use of statistical tests should promote more education among researchers and users of scientific evidence.
在科学文献中使用“统计学意义”这一术语的趋势日益增长。然而,人们对这一概念的严厉批评促使人们建议撤回其在科学出版物中的使用。我们旨在验证那些赞成去除统计学意义的研究人员对这一建议的支持和遵守的可行性。
我们调查了一篇支持这一建议的文章的签署者,以验证他们的意见,并询问他们在多大程度上可能会放弃统计学意义这一概念。
我们共获得了 151 份回复,这些回复确认了对上述出版物的支持,例如对 p 值的充分解释、一致性程度以及签署该出版物的动机等方面。然而,他们在未来出版物中使用“统计学意义”这一概念的可能性存在很大差异。约 42%的人表示中立,或者可能会再次使用。我们描述了一些签署者提到的论点,并讨论了在解释研究结果时需要考虑的一些方面。
从一部分签署者那里获得的回复验证了他们对使用统计学意义的立场。然而,即使在这一群体中,完全应用这一建议似乎也不可行。与不恰当地使用统计学检验相关的论点应在研究人员和科学证据使用者中促进更多的教育。