ArticleBMJ open2019
Reporting and interpretation of results from clinical trials that did not claim a treatment difference: survey of four general medical journals.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Learning Outcomes of High-fidelity versus Table-Top Simulation in Undergraduate Emergency Medicine Education: Prospective, Randomized, Crossover-Controlled Study.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2022Trial
- Home-Based Resistance Training for Older Subjects during the COVID-19 Outbreak in Italy: Preliminary Results of a Six-Months RCT.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- Integrating Housing and HIV Care: Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of Three Differentiated Service Delivery Housing Pilots in New York City.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- Interpretation of statistical findings in randomised trials: a survey of statisticians using thematic analysis of open-ended questions.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Connecting Female Entertainment Workers in Cambodia to Health Care Services Using mHealth: Economic Evaluation of Mobile Link.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
- Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey.PloS one · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Over Under Cartilage Tympanoplasty Is Not Inferior to Underlay Cartilage Tympanoplasty.Otology & neurotology open · 2021Article
- Claims of 'no difference' or 'no effect' in Cochrane and other systematic reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2021Article
- One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Galicia: A Global View of Age-Group Statistics during Three Waves.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Biostatistics: essential concepts for the clinician.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2021Article
- Current use of effect size or confidence interval analyses in clinical and biomedical research.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- The relationship of autistic traits to taste and olfactory processing in anorexia nervosa.Molecular autism · 2020Article
- The Trend to Use the Word "Trend" to Describe Nonsignificant Results in Orthopaedic Literature.JB & JS open accessReview
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
Abstract
objectivesTo describe and summarise how the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that did not find a significant treatment effect are reported, and to estimate how commonly trial reports make unwarranted claims.
designWe performed a retrospective survey of published RCTs, published in four high impact factor general medical journals between June 2016 and June 2017.
settingTrials conducted in all settings were included.
participants94 reports of RCTs that did not find a difference in their main comparison or comparisons were included.
interventionsAll interventions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: We recorded the way the results of each trial for its primary outcome or outcomes were described in Results and Conclusions sections of the Abstract, using a 10-category classification. Other outcomes were whether confidence intervals (CIs) and p values were presented for the main treatment comparisons, and whether the results and conclusions referred to measures of uncertainty. We estimated the proportion of papers that made claims that were not justified by the results, or were open to multiple interpretations.
results94 trial reports (120 treatment comparisons) were included. In Results sections, for 58/120 comparisons (48.3%) the results of the study were re-stated, without interpretation, and 38/120 (31.7%) stated that there was no statistically significant difference. In Conclusions, 65/120 treatment comparisons (54.2%) stated that there was no treatment benefit, 14/120 (11.7%) that there was no significant benefit and 16/120 (13.3%) that there was no significant difference. CIs and p values were both presented by 84% of studies (79/94), but only 3/94 studies referred to uncertainty when drawing conclusions.
conclusionsThe majority of trials (54.2%) inappropriately interpreted a result that was not statistically significant as indicating no treatment benefit. Very few studies interpreted the result as indicating a lack of evidence against the null hypothesis of zero difference between the trial arms.
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.