The “P”‑Value: The Primary Alphabet of Research Revisited

Debasish Das, Tutan Das


Each research roves around the P value. A value less than 0.05 is considered to be statistically significant. Very few researchers are aware of the history, real‑world significance, statistical insight, and in‑depth criticism about this monumental alphabet of research. This article will provide detailed insight into the most common molecule of research which will be rewarding for the young students and researchers in the primary world of research. It is not a simple value; it is the longest and broadest description of research squeezed to a number for the ground level worker to the principal investigator. The present review will provide a detailed and unique insight into the P value which would be rewarding for the primary care physicians toward translating research into their clinical practice.


P value; research; significance

Full Text:



Eric B, Marie J. Physico‑Theology and Mathematics. The Descent

of Human Sex Ratio at Birth (1710‑1794). Springer Science and

Business Media; 2007; 1‑25 ISBN 978‑1‑4020‑6036‑6.

Arbuthnot J. An argument for divine providence taken from the

constant regularity observed in the births of both sexes. Philos

Trans Royal Soc London 1710;27:186‑90.

Anders H. Chance or Design: Tests of Significance. A History of

Mathematical Statistics from 1998;4:65.

Pearson K. On the criterion that a given system of deviations

from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables

is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from

random sampling. Philos Mag 1900;50:151‑75.

Fisher. The Principles of Experimentation, Illustrated by a

Psycho‑physical Experiment. Mac Millan Publishing, New York

before 1971 and ISBN: 10022.

Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP. P‑curve: A key to the

file‑drawer. J Exp Psychol Gen 2014;143:534‑47.

Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA’s statement on P values:

Context, process, and purpose. Am Stat 2016;70:129‑33.

Lyden P. Using the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale.

Stroke. 2017;48:513:9.

Storey JD. The positive false discovery rate: A Bayesian

interpretation and the q value. Ann Stast 2003;31:2013‑35.

Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world

beyond “p<0.05”. Am Stat 2019;73:119.

Boring EG. Mathematical vs. scientific significance. Psychol

Bull 1919;16:335‑8.

Benjamin DJ, Berger JO, Johannesson M, Nosek BA,

Wagenmakers EJ, Berk R, et al. Redefine statistical significance.

Nat Hum Behav 2018;2:6‑10.

Ioannidis JPA. The proposal to lower P value thresholds to. 005.

JAMA 2018;319:1429‑30.

Wellons M, Ouyang P, Schreiner PJ, Herrington DM, Vaidya D.

Early menopause predicts future coronary heart disease and

stroke: The Multi‑ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Menopause


Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, Manoukian S, Bergonzi S,

Trecate G, et al. Multicenter surveillance of women at high

genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography,

and contrast‑enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high

breast cancer risk Italian 1 study): Final results. Invest Radiol


Alic L, Niessen WJ, Veenland JF. Quantification of heterogeneity

as a biomarker in tumorimaging: Asystematicreview. PLoS One

;9:e110300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0110300.

Chalkidou A, O’Doherty MJ, Marsden PK. False discovery

rates in PET and CT studies with texture features: A systematic

review. PLoS One 2015;10:e0124165.

Altman DG, Lausen B, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Dangers of

using “optimal” cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors.

J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:829‑35.

Goodman WM, Spruill SE, Komaroff E. A proposed hybrid

effect size plus P value criterion: Empirical evidence supporting

its use. Am Stat 2019;73(Suppl 1):168‑85.

Blume JD, Greevy RA, Welty VF, Smith JR, Dupont WD.

An introduction to second‑generation P values. Am Stat

;73:(Suppl 1):157‑67.

Dahiru T. P – value, a true test of statistical significance? A

cautionary note. Ann Ib Postgrad Med 2008;6:21‑6.

Gao J. P values‑ A chronic conundrum. BMC Med Res Methodol


Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social

sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science 2014;345:1502‑5.

Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions MD. The

extent and consequences of P‑Hacking in science. PLoS Biol

;13:e1002106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio. 1002106.

Lakens D. The practical alternative to the P value is the correctly

used P value. Perspect Psychol Sci 2021;16:639‑48.

Price R, Bethune R, Massey L. Problem with P values: Why

P values do not tell you if your treatment is likely to work.

Postgrad Med J 2020;96:1‑3.

Karpen SC. P value problems. Am J Pharm Educ 2017;81:6570.

Baker M. Statisticians issue warning over misuse of P values.

Nature 2016;531:151.