ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2009
The use of confidence intervals in reporting orthopaedic research findings.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circumflex arterial sulcus of the scapula (sulcus arteriae circumflexae scapulae): its anatomy and clinical relevance.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2022Article
- Assessing variability and uncertainty in orthopedic randomized controlled trials.Acta orthopaedica · 2020Article
- Bilayer Implants: Electromechanical Assessment of Regenerated Articular Cartilage in a Sheep Model.Cartilage · 2016Article
- Poor quality in the reporting and use of statistical methods in public health - the case of unemployment and health.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2015Article
- Important statistical points to improve and promote the methodology of the articles on medical sciences, particularly nephrology and kidney; a review article.Journal of renal injury prevention · 2015Review
- Effects of suture choice on biomechanics and physeal status after bioenhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair in skeletally immature patients: a large-animal study.Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2013Article
- VEGF receptor mRNA expression by ACL fibroblasts is associated with functional healing of the ACL.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2011Article
- Rationale for and methods of superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence designs in orthopaedic, controlled trials.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2011Review
- Reporting results of orthopaedic research: confidence intervals and p values.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2009Article
- The critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials published in an Indian journal to assess the quality of reporting: A retrospective, cross-sectional study.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conflict between clinical importance and statistical significance is an important problem in medical research. Although clinical importance is best described by asking for the effect size or how much, statistical significance can only suggest whether there is any difference. One way to combine statistical significance and effect sizes is to report confidence intervals. We therefore assessed the reporting of confidence intervals in the orthopaedic literature and factors influencing this frequency. In parallel, we tested the predictive value of statistical significance for effect size. In a random sample of predetermined size, we found one in five orthopaedic articles reported confidence intervals. Participation of an individual trained in research methods increased the odds of doing so fivefold. The use of confidence intervals was independent of impact factor, year of publication, and significance of outcomes. The probability of statistically significant results to predict at least a 10% between-group difference was only 69% (95% confidence interval, 55%-83%), suggesting that a high proportion of statistically significant results do not reflect large treatment effects. Confidence intervals could help avoid such erroneous interpretation by showing the effect size explicitly.
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.