Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32748164›Full record

ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2022

Promoting Learning from Null or Negative Results in Prevention Science Trials.

Nick Axford, Vashti Berry, Jenny Lloyd, Tim Hobbs, Katrina Wyatt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Two-Year Risk Behavior Outcomes from Connecting, a Prevention Program for Caregivers and Youth in Foster Care.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Engaging Families in Voluntary Prevention Services to Reduce Future Child Abuse and Neglect: a Randomized Controlled Trial.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2021
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Preventing Youth Crime and Violence: Intervention and Evaluation Issues.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pilot Testing an Ecotherapy Program for Adolescence: Initial Findings and Methodological Reflections.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  18. Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Review
  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

5 authors.

Nick AxfordNIHR ARC South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-2091
Vashti BerryNIHR ARC South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. V.Berry@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6438-3731
Jenny LloydUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3211-5972
Tim HobbsDartington Service Design Lab, Dartington, UK.
Katrina WyattUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7099-159X

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There can be a tendency for investigators to disregard or explain away null or negative results in prevention science trials. Examples include not publicizing findings, conducting spurious subgroup analyses, or attributing the outcome post hoc to real or perceived weaknesses in trial design or intervention implementation. This is unhelpful for several reasons, not least that it skews the evidence base, contributes to research "waste", undermines respect for science, and stifles creativity in intervention development. In this paper, we identify possible policy and practice responses when interventions have null (ineffective) or negative (harmful) results, and argue that these are influenced by: the intervention itself (e.g., stage of gestation, perceived importance); trial design, conduct, and results (e.g., pattern of null/negative effects, internal and external validity); context (e.g., wider evidence base, state of policy); and individual perspectives and interests (e.g., stake in the intervention). We advance several strategies to promote more informative null or negative effect trials and enable learning from such results, focusing on changes to culture, process, intervention design, trial design, and environment.

Indexed as

Negative ResultsResearch DesignHumansEvaluationNegative effectNull effectRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32748164
PMCPMC7398716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.