ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2013
[Confidence intervals and p-values in urology: interpretation and misinterpretation].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Kaplan-Meier analysis in urological practice].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2013Review
- [Use and interpretation of the number needed to treat in urological practice].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Confidence intervals and p-values are widely used in the urological literature to describe and interpret outcomes. However, several readers, authors and reviewers are unfamiliar with the true interpretation of these values. P-values determine statistical significance of data. Confidence intervals characterize a range of values in which the true effect size is suggested to be with a given degree of certainty. An independent but complementary interpretation of both values is important in studies with and without statistical significance. Based on a clinical case scenario this article discusses the interpretation as well as common pitfalls in interpretation of p-values and confidence intervals. An accurate assessment of these statistical cornerstones is fundamental for a correct interpretation of the urological literature and thus important aspects of evidence-based urology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23511856What 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.