1)The investigators of this study were comparing the change in calcium levels between two groups undergoing either a new treatment or their usual care. The p value was found to be 0.026 and it was concluded that there was only a 2.6% chance that the two groups were the same. A 0.05 significance level was used and ultimately the null hypothesis was rejected. I believe that the investigators accurately rejected the null hypothesis as the calculated p value is less than the level significance. The low p value of 0.026 suggests that our sample test statistic would be unusual if the null hypothesis were true. I believe that the reviewer in this scenario made an inaccurate statement by saying that the null hypothesis should be accepted.

2)Knowing that P-value is the probability that you get the sample results simply by chance and given that the null hypothesis is true.

Generally, we would reject Ho (i.e., null hypothesis) if the p-value is less than or equal to the significance level.

So, in this case, since the investigators have their level of significance of 0.05, which is greater than .026, then they are correct, and they can reject Ho. And conclude that there is a difference in the calcium levels of both groups, and the Reviewer's claim would not be accurate.

What is your opinion can you explain ?