Lowering the statistical significance threshold of randomized controlled trials in three major general anesthesiology journals
Authors' conclusion
Lowering a P value threshold of 0.05 to 0.005 would have altered one third of significance interpretations of RCTs in the surveyed anesthesiology literature.
Study context
- Population
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2020 in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia and the British Journal of Anaesthesia with a primary endpoint and a P value threshold99 primary endpoints
- Participants
- 91 participants
- Exposure
- P value threshold 0.005 vs 0.05
- Outcome
- Effect of lowering the P value threshold from 0.05 to 0.005 on statistical significance of published RCTs
Methodological detailsmeta-research, masked duplicate screening and data extraction
- Meta-research
- Masked duplicate screening and data extraction
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Primary endpoints significant at P < 0.05 reclassified at P < 0.005
Primary endpoints with P < 0.05
58
59%
Primary endpoints with P ≥ 0.05
41
41%
Previously significant endpoints maintaining significance at P < 0.005
21
36%
Previously significant endpoints reclassified as "suggestive"
37
64%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Most frequently studied intervention type
- Drugs
- 44/91, 48%
Original publication
Lowering the statistical significance threshold of randomized controlled trials in three major general anesthesiology journals. Can J Anaesth. Published 10 August 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →