ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
Farewell to Bright-Line: A Guide to Reporting Quantitative Results Without the S-Word.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patterns of depression symptoms in relation to stressors and social behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic among older youth and emerging adults in the United States.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The impact of 12 modifiable lifestyle behaviours on depressive and anxiety symptoms in middle adolescence: prospective analyses of the Canadian longitudinal COMPASS study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- Elevated Pure Tone Thresholds Are Associated with Altered Microstructure in Cortical Areas Related to Auditory Processing and Attentional Allocation.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Article
- A biosocial return to race? A cautionary view for the postgenomic era.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2022Review
- Comparison of factor analysis models applied to the NCANDA neuropsychological test battery.PloS one · 2022Article
- Association of alcohol and other substance-related diagnoses with severe maternal morbidity.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2021Article
- Article
- The impact of recent homelessness on the provision of injection drug use initiation assistance among persons who inject drugs in Tijuana, Mexico and Vancouver, Canada.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2021Article
- Staying Home, Distancing, and Face Masks: COVID-19 Prevention among U.S. Women in The COPE Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent calls to end the practice of categorizing findings based on statistical significance have focused on what not to do. Practitioners who subscribe to the conceptual basis behind these calls may be unaccustomed to presenting results in the nuanced and integrative manner that has been recommended as an alternative. This alternative is often presented as a vague proposal. Here, we provide practical guidance and examples for adopting a research evaluation posture and communication style that operates without bright-line significance testing. Characteristics of the structure of results communications that are based on conventional significance testing are presented. Guidelines for writing results without the use of bright-line significance testing are then provided. Examples of conventional styles for communicating results are presented. These examples are then modified to conform to recent recommendations. These examples demonstrate that basic modifications to written scientific communications can increase the information content of scientific reports without a loss of rigor. The adoption of alternative approaches to results presentations can help researchers comply with multiple recommendations and standards for the communication and reporting of statistics in the psychological sciences.
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.