Aller au contenu

Guide · Recherche sur les peptides

Statistical significance vs practical importance in research

Learn why a threshold-based result does not reveal effect size, precision, clinical relevance, bias, or the full evidence context.

Par Équipe éditoriale de PeptidiaRévisé le 4 août 2026Lecture de 7 min

Réponse directe

Réponse directe

Statistical significance addresses how compatible observed data are with a specified statistical model; it does not tell you whether an effect is large, important, unbiased, or likely to apply to an individual. Read the effect estimate, confidence interval, absolute change, outcome relevance, study design, and full evidence body.

Ce qui compte

  • A significance label is not an effect size.
  • Confidence intervals show the precision and range of compatible effects.
  • Small effects can cross a threshold in large studies, while important effects can remain uncertain in small studies.
  • Practical importance depends on outcomes, tradeoffs, and context.

Read the estimate before the threshold

The point estimate describes the observed magnitude and direction. The confidence interval describes uncertainty around that estimate. A binary significant-or-not label discards much of this information.

Two studies can produce similar estimates while landing on opposite sides of a conventional threshold because their precision differs. That does not make their underlying effects categorically different.

Ask whether the outcome and magnitude matter

A small change in an intermediate biomarker may be statistically clear yet offer uncertain practical value. A patient-important outcome can be more meaningful even when the estimate remains imprecise.

Absolute effects, baseline risk, follow-up duration, adverse events, burden, and alternatives all shape practical interpretation.

Keep design and multiplicity in view

Bias is not erased by a low probability value. Selective outcome reporting, many unplanned analyses, missing data, or an unsuitable comparator can produce a persuasive-looking result.

Check whether the outcome and analysis were prespecified, then compare the result with the wider evidence rather than treating one threshold as a verdict.

Consulter le dossier

Sources

  1. 01Cochrane
  2. 02Cochrane
  3. 03National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

Aller plus loin

Gardez la bibliothèque de données probantes dans votre poche.

Peptidia pour iPhone ajoute la bibliothèque révisée complète, des fiches d’études consultables, des questions étayées et un journal de bien-être privé — sans données posologiques numériques ni protocoles.

Télécharger dans l’App Store