Abstract
The application and interpretation of P values have caused debate for several decades, and this debate has become particularly relevant in the past few years. The P value represents the probability of seeing results as extreme or more extreme than those observed in a data analysis, were the null hypothesis and other underlying assumptions to be true. While P values are useful in pointing out where an effect may be present, they have often been misused in an attempt to oversell "statistically significant" findings. As P values rely on the spread and number of measurements, a smaller P value does not necessarily imply a larger effect size, which is better assessed via an effect estimate and confidence interval interpreted in the context of the study. The clinical relevance of a computed P value is context dependent. We investigated the current use of P values in a small sample of recent neurosurgical literature. Only a minority of manuscripts that reported statistical significance described confounder adjustment, or effect sizes. A common, incorrect assumption often observed was that statistical significance equals clinical relevance. To enable correct interpretation of clinical significance, it is crucial that authors describe the clinical implications of their findings.
