Original ArticleNo Access

Department of Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgery, KIMS Al Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna, Kerala, India

Correspondence to: Ajeesh Sankaran, Department of Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgery, KIMS Al Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna, Kerala 679322, India. Tel: +91-9645486106.

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835522500643Cited by:0 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Introduction: Significance chasing occurs when data is manipulated to achieve statistical significance. Evidence for such practice is now well known across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to identify if such a phenomenon exists in Hand Surgery literature.

Methods: All p values contained in the articles published in three prominent Hand Surgery journals were analysed. The preponderance of values just under 0.05 was then studied by statistical methods.

Results: 3,124 p values were recorded, with 1,320 values <0.05. A statistically significant preponderance of values between 0.04 and 0.05 was noted (Binomial test, p = 0.0441). The 0.05 point was also found to have the greatest deviation from a best fit exponential curve.

Conclusions: Significance chasing is possibly existent in Hand Surgery literature as well.

Keywords:

REFERENCES

1. Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions MD. The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. March 13, 2015;13(3):e1002106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106. Crossref, Google Scholar
2. Bin Abd Razak HR, Ang JE, Attal H, Howe TS, Allen JC. P-hacking in orthopaedic literature: A twist to the tail. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(20):e91. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00479. Crossref, Google Scholar
3. Masicampo EJ, Lalande DR. A peculiar prevalence of p values just below 0.05. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(11):2271–2279. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.711335. Crossref, Google Scholar
4. Sellke T, Bayarr MJ, Berger JO. Calibration of p values for testing precise null hypotheses. Am Stat. 2001;55:62–71. Google Scholar
5. Cumming G. Replication and p intervals: P values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better. Perspect Psychol Sci. July, 2008;3(4):286–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00079.x. Crossref, Google Scholar
6. Rozeboom WW. The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychol Bull. 1960;57:416–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042040. Crossref, Google Scholar
7. Bakan D. The test of significance in psychological research. Psychol Bull. 1966;66(6):423–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020412. Crossref, Google Scholar
8. McShane BB, Gal D, Gelman A, Robert C, Tackett JL. Abandon statistical significance. Am Stat. 2019;73(S1):235–245. Crossref, Google Scholar
9. Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS One. April 21, 2010;5(4):e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271. Crossref, Google Scholar
10. Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1–2):51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(79)90012-2. Crossref, Google Scholar
11. Wagenmakers EJ. A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychon Bull Rev. October, 2007;14(5):779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194105. Crossref, Google Scholar
12. John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci. April 16, 2012;23(5):524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953. Crossref, Google Scholar
13. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Crossref, Google Scholar
14. Szucs D, Ioannidis JPA. When null hypothesis significance testing is unsuitable for research: A reassessment. Front Hum Neurosci. August 3, 2017;11:390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390. Crossref, Google Scholar
15. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70:129–133. Google Scholar
16. Bruns SB, Ioannidis JP. P-curve and p-hacking in observational research. PLoS One. February 17, 2016;11(2):e0149144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149144. Crossref, Google Scholar
17. Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, DuMouchel W, Suchard MA, Madigan D. Interpreting observational studies: Why empirical calibration is needed to correct p-values. Stat Med. January 30, 2014;33(2):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5925. Epub July 30, 2013. Crossref, Google Scholar