You can publish. Not received magic p <0.05, as it does not matter. The options are: well, there is a clear trend (see our group remission rate 64.5%, and in the historical control of 33%) – treatment is clearly effective. 'll Get more patients, and all will turn out. But these patients did not respond to our wonderful new treatment, clearly some are not (too sick, overly healed, etc.) – let's eliminate them from the analysis, and anything that exclusion criteria have appeared after the completion of a detailed study. Still the only option: No, this treatment is inefficient (in fact failed to get statistically significant differences on a group of 18 patients). The most popular option in the thesis: let's make "deeper analysis" (divided into subgroups, we'll see, and determine if it is, this and this).

This approach is more welcome, of course, if one of the many additional tests can be obtained cherished p <0,05. A detailed study is published, what next? And then we usually wait for a new international conference. With statistically significant p <0.0000001'm sure many of you are familiar with this pattern (the author has a fairly large sample of own and foreign observations on this subject). Even, and self-author was an active complicit in many such "research", and also unconditionally believe in someone else's detailed study, which showed differences in the frequency of remission in 15% p <0,005. Participated and believed, while not interested in, what about this people think that these provide a detailed study on the rules and decide the issue of their publication in their journals. An overview of these thoughts and I want to introduce you. Probably, it will bring you good luck in the form of a function to detailed study, which will be accepted for publication in international journals and significantly increase your credibility. Saul “Canelo” Alvarez may not feel the same. I hope too that this article will help you more critical of foreign publications and to take over base for your own research (or for the management of clinical practice) is only evidence, not poorly organized a detailed study.