ReviewContemporary clinical trials communications2017
The over-representation of significant p values in abstracts compared to corresponding full texts: A systematic review of surgical randomized trials.
Review in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors associated with the reporting quality of low back pain systematic review abstracts in physical therapy: a methodological study.Brazilian journal of physical therapyPooled it
- Bridging the computational-experimental gap: leveraging large language model to prioritize Alzheimer's therapeutics based on comparison of learning models.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Bridging the Computational-Experimental Gap: Leveraging Large Language Model to Prioritize Alzheimer's Therapeutics Based on Comparison of Learning Models.Research square · 2025Article
- Analysis ofOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbstracts are often the only read summaries of research findings, and it is essential that they accurately represent of the contents of the full text of the randomised control trial (RCT). We investigated whether outcomes in surgical trials were selectively reported in abstracts based on their statistical significance.
objectiveTo compare the proportion of significant p-values reported in abstracts to their corresponding full texts in surgical RCTs.
methodA Meta-analysis of 350 full text RCTs conducted on humans that compared a surgical intervention to any other intervention. An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted. All outcomes were extracted from the abstract and the full text. Frequency histograms were used to plot the distribution of numerically reported p-values across the statistical significance spectrum. For each RCT, a 2 × 2 table was populated with that trial's outcomes and whether the outcome was statistically significant (p < 0.05). From each 2 × 2 table, an odds ratio (OR) was calculated describing the association between statistical significance, and reporting in the abstract. ORs were pooled in random effects meta-analysis for an overall estimate of the association.
resultsA total of 8258 reported outcomes were included. Outcomes reported in a surgical RCT abstract had three times the odds of being significant when compared to the corresponding full text (OR = 3.0, 95% confidence interval 2.5-3.6, p < 0.001). This finding was consistent and not subject to heterogeneity (I
conclusionsData presented in abstracts is biased to statistically significant outcomes. Clinicians and policy makers should do not rely solely on information presented in abstracts for their decision-making.
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.