ArticlePloS one2025
On the effect of flexible adjustment of the p value significance threshold on the reproducibility of randomized clinical trials.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- TheJournal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReproducibility crisis is among major concerns of many scientists worldwide. Some researchers believe that the crisis is mostly attributed to the conventional p significance threshold value arbitrarily chosen to be 0.05 and propose to lower the cut-off to 0.005. Reducing the cut-off, although decreases the false-positive rate, is associated with an increase in false-negative rate. Recently, a flexible p significance threshold that minimizes the weighted sum of errors in statistical inference tests of hypothesis was proposed.
methodsThe current in silico study was conducted to compare the error rates under different conditions assumed for the p significance threshold-0.05, 0.005, and a flexible threshold. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, the false-positive rate (when the null hypothesis was true) and false-negative rate (when the alternative hypothesis was true) were calculated in a hypothetical randomized clinical trial.
resultsIncreasing the study sample size was associated with a reduction in the false-negative rate, however, the false-positive rate occurred at a fixed value regardless of the sample size when fixed significance thresholds were used; the rate decreased, however, when the flexible threshold was employed. While employing the flexible threshold abolished the reproducibility crisis to a large extent, the method uncovered an inherent conflict in the frequentist statistical inference framework. Calculation of the flexible p significance threshold is only possible a posteriori, after the results are obtained. The threshold would thus be different even for replicas, which is in contradiction to the common sense.
conclusionsIt seems that relying on frequentist statistical inference and the p value is no longer a viable approach. Emphasis should be shifted toward alternative approaches for data analysis, Bayesian statistical methods, for example.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.