Richter A, Zink A
Institut für Community Medicine, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, 17475, Greifswald, Deutschland.
Deutsches Rheuma-Forschungszentrum Berlin, Ein Institut der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, Berlin, Deutschland.
Z Rheumatol. 2020 Sep;79(7):692-695. doi: 10.1007/s00393-020-00835-x.
In the journal Nature, under the headline "Retire statistical significance", Amrhein et al. called for the concept of statistical significance to be abolished. This appeal, which was signed by about 800 other researchers, triggered a controversial discussion. One reason for the deliberately provocative call is the scientific practice in which the concept of statistical significance is often applied in an incorrect way for yes/no decisions. The criticism is not new and has been repeatedly expressed over the last 50 years. We refer to current and previously published caveats, give an overview of different applications of the concept of statistical significance as well as possible alternatives. We agree in principle with the criticism of the concept expressed by Amrhein et al. but in the absence of agreed alternatives and insufficient consideration of the many different applications of the concept of statistical significance, we consider the demand for its abolition to be exaggerated. A more pragmatic approach to the problem, supported by targeted instructions for scientists and reviewers, seems to be a more appropriate way forward.
在《自然》杂志上，以“摒弃统计显著性”为标题，阿姆莱茵等人呼吁废除统计显著性这一概念。这一呼吁有大约800名其他研究人员联名签署，引发了一场有争议的讨论。这一故意具有挑衅性的呼吁的一个原因是科学实践中统计显著性概念经常被错误地用于二元决策。这种批评并不新鲜，在过去50年里已被反复表达。我们提及当前和之前发表的相关警示，概述统计显著性概念的不同应用以及可能的替代方法。我们原则上同意阿姆莱茵等人对该概念的批评，但由于缺乏商定的替代方法，且对统计显著性概念的诸多不同应用考虑不足，我们认为废除它的要求有些夸张。一种更务实的解决该问题的方法，辅以针对科学家和审稿人的有针对性的指导，似乎是更合适的前进方向。
