ArticleFrontiers in psychology2014
Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 782 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
782 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of group and individual therapy in physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy: a systematic review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Now I feel like I'm going to get to it soon: a brief, scalable intervention for state procrastination.BMC psychology · 2025Trial
- Repetitive somatosensory stimulation shrinks the body image.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise Versus Traditional Resistance Exercise in Voluntary Exhaustion on Quadriceps Muscle Adaptations in Untrained Young Males: A Randomized Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of the Offer of the Smoke Free Smartphone App Compared With No Intervention for Smoking Cessation: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Trial
- Cognitive control training with domain-general response inhibition does not change children's brains or behavior.Nature neuroscience · 2024Trial
- Positive emotion up-regulation is resistant to working memory load: An electrocortical investigation of reappraisal and savoring.Psychophysiology · 2023Trial
- The effects of creatine supplementation on cognitive performance-a randomised controlled study.BMC medicine · 2023Trial
- Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Algorithm-assisted personalized risk communication to encourage flu vaccination in the USA: three randomized field trials.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Single-nucleus atlas of cell-type specific genetic regulation in the human brain.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- Impulse Control Disorders Are Independent of Parkinson Disease Motor Subtypes.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- A novel cross-modal perceptual effect: Sound-induced increase of the non-contact illusion.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Conceptual but not perceptual encoding leads to age differences in priming.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- From case-control averages to validated subgroups: Interpreting inflammatory and neuroaxonal-injury biomarkers in schizophrenia and major depression.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2026Review
- Feedforward Processing in Early Visual Cortex Underlies the Ebbinghaus Illusion.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- The Quality of Parent-Adolescent and Peer-Adolescent Relationships and Trust in Strangers.The Journal of early adolescence · 2026Article
- Are Creative People More Susceptible to False Memory? Evidence for Age- and Task-Related Differences.Creativity research journal · 2026Article
722 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No scientific conclusion follows automatically from a statistically non-significant result, yet people routinely use non-significant results to guide conclusions about the status of theories (or the effectiveness of practices). To know whether a non-significant result counts against a theory, or if it just indicates data insensitivity, researchers must use one of: power, intervals (such as confidence or credibility intervals), or else an indicator of the relative evidence for one theory over another, such as a Bayes factor. I argue Bayes factors allow theory to be linked to data in a way that overcomes the weaknesses of the other approaches. Specifically, Bayes factors use the data themselves to determine their sensitivity in distinguishing theories (unlike power), and they make use of those aspects of a theory's predictions that are often easiest to specify (unlike power and intervals, which require specifying the minimal interesting value in order to address theory). Bayes factors provide a coherent approach to determining whether non-significant results support a null hypothesis over a theory, or whether the data are just insensitive. They allow accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis to be put on an equal footing. Concrete examples are provided to indicate the range of application of a simple online Bayes calculator, which reveal both the strengths and weaknesses of Bayes factors.
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.