Although there is - hopefully - no new 'learning' from a confirmatory study, there is still immense value in demonstrating that we got it right.
Indeed, "demonstrate" is frequently used in both pharma and medical devices. Regulators use it, meaning you have to demonstrate it to them. But some developers also use it, because they assume it is a foregone conclusion. From a meeting to decide how long patients should be followed in a clinical trial in order to adequately assess safety and effectiveness of a particular type of medical device:
"Some people think 12 months of data are needed. Some people think at least 6 months. Others think only 3 months will be sufficient. And some people seem to think they already know it is safe and effective, without ever having collected any data at all."
"Some people think 12 months of data are needed. Some people think at least 6 months. Others think only 3 months will be sufficient. And some people seem to think they already know it is safe and effective, without ever having collected any data at all."
Point well taken, but expectations are not knowledge.
Is it dead in scientific journals, which is where this discussion started? I don't read a lot of scientific journals these days, but still some. I read a lot more medical journals. In the journals I read, the p-value seems to be very much alive and well. If you call being reported in a medical journal living.
Okay, so maybe the p-value is not dead yet, but it's dying. These things take time. Especially in the medical field, which is conservative and slow to change by nature (a good thing most of the time, I think).
