in their previous statistics teaching which has misguidedly emphasized this accept/reject philosophy of significance testing. A key early text in expanding the appropriate use of significance tests and other statistical techniques was () first published in G W Snedecor’s “Statistical Methods” 1940. proselytizing of ideas achieved much, his book being the Snedecor’s Fisher’s most cited scientific text in the 1970s. Over several decades P-values took hold as the main method for comparing treatments in all kinds of experimental studies, especially in agriculture initially but increasingly in medical research as randomized clinical trials became the gold standard for evaluating new therapeutic interventions. Irwin Bross in 1971 gave a valuable perspective on how the use of P-values seemed to be heading in some inappropriate directions and saw a for curtailing “need (). Bross did see merit in P<0.05 as a point of there language games” reference: “if were no 5% level firmly established some would stretch the level to 6% or 7%. Soon others would be stretching to 10% or 15%. Furthermore 5% level is a feasible “the level at which to do research work, i.e. to set up a study which will have a fair chance of picking up effects of scientific He appeared to adopt a more critical interest”. stance when to use P values nearly as absolute cut-offs, but stating “we continue with an eye to rethinking our position for values close to He was also wisely 0.05”. aware of the push for researchers to tend to worry claim significance: “researchers about P values slightly greater than 0.05 and why they deserve attention nonetheless. I cannot recall published research downplaying P values less than How true! 0.05”. References 1. McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;371:993-1004. 2. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, et al. Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;369:1317-1326.
in their previous statistics teaching which has misguidedly emphasized this accept/reject philosophy of significance testing. A key early text in expanding the appropriate use of significance tests and other statistical techniques was G W Snedecor’s “Statistical Methods” () first published in 1940. Snedecor’s proselytizing of Fisher’s ideas achieved much, his book being the most cited scientific text in the 1970s. Over several decades P-values took hold as the main method for comparing treatments in all kinds of experimental studies, especially in agriculture initially but increasingly in medical research as randomized clinical trials became the gold standard for evaluating new therapeutic interventions. Irwin Bross in 1971 gave a valuable perspective on how the use of P-values seemed to be heading in some inappropriate directions and saw a “need for curtailing language games” (). Bross did see merit in P<0.05 as a point of reference: “if there were no 5% level firmly established some would stretch the level to 6% or 7%. Soon others would be stretching to 10% or 15%. Furthermore “the 5% level is a feasible level at which to do research work, i.e. to set up a study which will have a fair chance of picking up effects of scientific interest”. He appeared to adopt a more critical stance when stating “we continue to use P values nearly as absolute cut-offs, but with an eye to rethinking our position for values close to 0.05”. He was also wisely aware of the push for researchers to claim significance: “researchers tend to worry about P values slightly greater than 0.05 and why they deserve attention nonetheless. I cannot recall published research downplaying P values less than 0.05”. How true! References 1. McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;371:993-1004. 2. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, et al. Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;369:1317-1326.