To the EditorP values are often misused and misinterpreted in the medical literature. Common mistakes include assuming P values measure the probability of a hypothesis being true (ie, indicate uncertainty) and quantify the strength of an observed effect (ie, conflating small P values with true effects).1 As a solution, Tignanelli et al2 strongly recommend the use of the Fragility Index (FI) and Fragility Quotient (FQ) in the reporting and appraisal of surgical randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Acuna SA, Sue-Chue-Lam C, Dossa F. The Fragility Index—P Values Reimagined, Flaws and All. JAMA Surg. Published online April 17, 2019154(7):674. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0567
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: