ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2002
Reporting of numerical and statistical differences in abstracts: improving but not optimal.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration.PLoS medicine · 2008Guideline
- Endpoint selection and relative (versus absolute) risk reporting in published medication trials.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Article
- Introductory course on getting to know journals and on "browsing" a research paper: first steps to proficiency in scientific communication.Croatian medical journal · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe reporting of relative risk reductions (RRRs) or absolute risk reductions (ARRs) to quantify binary outcomes in trials engenders differing perceptions of therapeutic efficacy, and the merits of P values versus confidence intervals (CIs) are also controversial. We describe the manner in which numerical and statistical difference in treatment outcomes is presented in published abstracts.
designA descriptive study of abstracts published in 1986 and 1996 in 8 general medical and specialty journals. INCLUSION CRITERIA: controlled, intervention trials with a binary primary or secondary outcome. Seven items were recorded: raw data (outcomes for each treatment arm), measure of relative difference (e.g., RRR), ARR, number needed to treat, P value, CI, and verbal statement of statistical significance. The prevalence of these items was compared between journals and across time.
resultsOf 5,293 abstracts, 300 met the inclusion criteria. In 1986, 60% of abstracts did not provide both the raw data and a corresponding P value or CI, while 28% failed to do so in 1Dr. Hux is a Career Scientist of the Ontario Ministry of Health and receives salary support from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Ontario.996 ( P <.001; RRR of 53%; ARR of 32%; CI for ARR 21% to 43%). The variability between journals was highly significant ( P <.001). In 1986, 100% of abstracts lacked a measure of absolute difference while 88% of 1996 abstracts did so ( P <.001). In 1986, 98% of abstracts lacked a CI while 65% of 1996 abstracts did so ( P <.001).
conclusionsThe provision of quantitative outcome and statistical quantitative information has significantly increased between 1986 and 1996. However, further progress can be made to make abstracts more informative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.