ArticleGigaScience2018
The intriguing evolution of effect sizes in biomedical research over time: smaller but more often statistically significant.
Article in GigaScience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Changes in Dosing and Dose Timing of D-Cycloserine Explain Its Apparent Declining Efficacy for Augmenting Exposure Therapy for Anxiety-related Disorders: An Individual Participant-data Meta-analysis.Journal of anxiety disorders · 2019Pooled it
- Temporal Changes in Effect Sizes of Studies Comparing Individuals With and Without Autism: A Meta-analysis.JAMA psychiatry · 2019Pooled it
- Finding the right power balance: Better study design and collaboration can reduce dependence on statistical power.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Firstborn sex defines early childhood growth of subsequent siblings.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- A non-parametric effect-size measure capturing changes in central tendency and data distribution shape.PloS one · 2020Article
- The intriguing evolution of effect sizes in biomedical research over time: smaller but more often statistically significant.GigaScience · 2018Article
- P values in display items are ubiquitous and almost invariably significant: A survey of top science journals.PloS one · 2018Article
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
Background: In medicine, effect sizes (ESs) allow the effects of independent variables (including risk/protective factors or treatment interventions) on dependent variables (e.g., health outcomes) to be quantified. Given that many public health decisions and health care policies are based on ES estimates, it is important to assess how ESs are used in the biomedical literature and to investigate potential trends in their reporting over time. Results: Through a big data approach, the text mining process automatically extracted 814 120 ESs from 13 322 754 PubMed abstracts. Eligible ESs were risk ratio, odds ratio, and hazard ratio, along with their confidence intervals. Here we show a remarkable decrease of ES values in PubMed abstracts between 1990 and 2015 while, concomitantly, results become more often statistically significant. Medians of ES values have decreased over time for both "risk" and "protective" values. This trend was found in nearly all fields of biomedical research, with the most marked downward tendency in genetics. Over the same period, the proportion of statistically significant ESs increased regularly: among the abstracts with at least 1 ES, 74% were statistically significant in 1990-1995, vs 85% in 2010-2015. Conclusions: whereas decreasing ESs could be an intrinsic evolution in biomedical research, the concomitant increase of statistically significant results is more intriguing. Although it is likely that growing sample sizes in biomedical research could explain these results, another explanation may lie in the "publish or perish" context of scientific research, with the probability of a growing orientation toward sensationalism in research reports. Important provisions must be made to improve the credibility of biomedical research and limit waste of resources.
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.