A traditional “Table 1” describes the characteristics of patients in a study, split by intervention, exposure, or control, not by outcome. Comparing groups in Table 1 with use of P-values is common but is a misuse of hypothesis testing that leads readers astray, often calling attention to meaningless differences while masking important ones. This practice—intended to signal rigor—actually undermines study interpretation, confuses description with inference, and distracts from the clinical meaning of the data while perpetuating myths and misunderstandings about P-values. Consistent with best-practice guidelines for reporting both randomized trials and observational studies, the reporting of P-values in Table 1 should be eschewed. A holistic assessment of Table 1, placed in the unique clinical context of the study at hand along with basic descriptive statistics, offers readers and authors a superior method to compare study groups in order to assess the validity of the study.