Editorials
Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026)
To P or not to P. That is the wrong question.
Suggestions on reporting uncertainty
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 10 June 2026
18
Views
16
Downloads
Authors
A few years ago, an article in the first issue of Bleeding, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, argued that biomedical research should move beyond the mechanical use of the p-value. That message was not new, but it was timely. It remains timely today. The p-value is still often treated as a gatekeeper: below 0.05, a finding is “real”; above 0.05, it is “negative”. This habit is simple, familiar, and convenient. It is also misleading [...]
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Citations
2.van Zwet E, Gelman A, Greenland S, et al. A new look at P values for randomized clinical trials. NEJM Evid 2024;3:EVIDoa2300003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2300003
3.Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond p<0.05. Am Stat. 2019;73:1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913
4.Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 2016;31:337-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
5.Harrington D, D’Agostino RB Sr, Gatsonis C, et al. New guidelines for statistical reporting in the Journal. N Engl J Med 2019; 381:285-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe1906559
6.Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Retire statistical significance. Nature 2019;567:305-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9
7.Greenland S, Mansournia MA, Joffe M. To curb research misreporting, replace significance and confidence by compatibility: a preventive medicine golden Jubilee article. Prev Med 2022;164:107127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107127
8.Greenland S. Valid p-values behave exactly as they should: some misleading criticisms of p-values and their resolution with s-values. Am Stat 2019;73:106-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1529625
9.Gelman A, Stern H. The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. American Statistician 2006;60:328-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1198/000313006X152649
How to Cite
1.
Di Castelnuovo A, de Gaetano G. To P or not to P. That is the wrong question.: Suggestions on reporting uncertainty. Bleeding Thromb Vasc Biol [Internet]. 2026 Jun. 10 [cited 2026 Jun. 13];5(2). Available from: https://www.btvb.org/btvb/article/view/572
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Giovanni de Gaetano, Chiara Cerletti, In this issue , Bleeding, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology: Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026)
