Abstract
Background Despite the efforts of leading statistical authorities and experts worldwide and the inherent dangers of interpretative errors in clinical research, misuses of statistical significance remain a common practice in the field of public health. Currently, there is a need to attempt to quantify this phenomenon.
Methods 100 studies were randomly selected within the PubMed database. An evaluation system for the interpretation, presentation, and communication of results (IPC) was adopted, which provided for a maximum of 11 points and a minimum acceptability threshold of 5 points.
Results The median of the results was 2 points out of the available 11 (IQR = 1). The difference from the minimum acceptable IPC score of 5 was substantial (90|95|99-% CI: [2; 4]) and, assuming all the Wilcoxon test requirements have been sufficiently met, highly surprising at the statistical level (P-value < .001, S-value < 10). In total, 13 out of 100 studies achieved the minimum score of 5 points.
Conclusion These findings provide solid evidence of widespread and severe methodological shortcomings in the use of statistical significance measures in clinical and public health research during 2023. Therefore, it is essential for academic journals to compulsorily demand higher scientific quality standards.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript