Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28936887›Full record

ReviewPostgraduate medicine2017

Interpretation of correlations in clinical research.

Man Hung, Jerry Bounsanga, Maren Wright Voss

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Postgraduate medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Man Hunga Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations , University of Utah , Salt Lake City , UT , USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2827-3740
Jerry Bounsangaa Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations , University of Utah , Salt Lake City , UT , USA.
Maren Wright Vossa Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations , University of Utah , Salt Lake City , UT , USA.

Funding

University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001067 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DERE, WILLARD H., HESS, RACHEL · 2013 to 2017
$19.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCritically analyzing research is a key skill in evidence-based practice and requires knowledge of research methods, results interpretation, and applications, all of which rely on a foundation based in statistics. Evidence-based practice makes high demands on trained medical professionals to interpret an ever-expanding array of research evidence.

objectiveAs clinical training emphasizes medical care rather than statistics, it is useful to review the basics of statistical methods and what they mean for interpreting clinical studies.

methodsWe reviewed the basic concepts of correlational associations, violations of normality, unobserved variable bias, sample size, and alpha inflation. The foundations of causal inference were discussed and sound statistical analyses were examined. We discuss four ways in which correlational analysis is misused, including causal inference overreach, over-reliance on significance, alpha inflation, and sample size bias.

resultsRecent published studies in the medical field provide evidence of causal assertion overreach drawn from correlational findings. The findings present a primer on the assumptions and nature of correlational methods of analysis and urge clinicians to exercise appropriate caution as they critically analyze the evidence before them and evaluate evidence that supports practice.

conclusionCritically analyzing new evidence requires statistical knowledge in addition to clinical knowledge. Studies can overstate relationships, expressing causal assertions when only correlational evidence is available. Failure to account for the effect of sample size in the analyses tends to overstate the importance of predictive variables. It is important not to overemphasize the statistical significance without consideration of effect size and whether differences could be considered clinically meaningful.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalResearch DesignBiomedical ResearchEvidence-Based PracticeHumanscausal relationshipsclinical educationcommentaryCorrelationinstructional materialsnon-experimental methodspractice-based research

Identifiers

PMID28936887
PMCPMC6130913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.