Between Biological Relevancy and Statistical Significance - Step for Assessment Harmonization

Abstract

The question of whether study results are significant, relevant and meaningful is the one to be answered before every study summary and presenting conclusions. This paper analyzes and juxtaposes currently used methods to assess statistical significance, effect size, and highlights the value of understating and assessing biological relevance. Many opinions of experts in various fields are cited to demonstrate the ambiguity of merely p-value usage. The answer to the question of the best approach is complex and a 3-step approach is suggested taking into consideration a. Statistical assessment of differences between groups b. Effect analysis and c. Biological relevance assessment.The paper emphasizes the need to take into account more than just statistical significance in the decision process, or decisions on accepting or rejecting hypotheses. p-values or any other statistical tool is not recommended as the main criterion for decision making. Furthermore, none of the above mentioned 3 steps should be used in isolation to assess the results. Moreover, there is a need for publication of negative results unless directly caused by poor design or low sample size because the current tendency to focus entirely on positive results biases the literature and leads to unnecessary replication of experiment.