ReviewBMC medical research methodology2020
Semantic and cognitive tools to aid statistical science: replace confidence and significance by compatibility and surprise.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 7 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
77 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled analysis of epigenome-wide association studies of food consumption in KORA, TwinsUK and LLS.European journal of nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Non-inferiority and clinical superiority of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors: Systematic analysis of cardiorenal outcome trials in type 2 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2022Pooled it
- Potential impacts of synthetic food dyes on activity and attention in children: a review of the human and animal evidence.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022Pooled it
- The Hydrating Effects of Hypertonic, Isotonic and Hypotonic Sports Drinks and Waters on Central Hydration During Continuous Exercise: A Systematic Meta-Analysis and Perspective.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Pooled it
- Controversy and Debate : Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 4 :Odds Ratios are far from "portable" - A call to use realistic models for effect variation in meta-analysis.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- Meta-analyses in paediatric surgery are often fragile: implications and consequences.Pediatric surgery international · 2021Pooled it
- Warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers: a pilot randomized experiment among young adults in Mexico.BMC public health · 2023Trial
- Heterogeneous treatment effects of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia-Post hoc exploratory analyses of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2023Trial
- Safe birth in cultural safety in southern Mexico: a pragmatic non-inferiority cluster-randomised controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Trial
- Nonparametric Assessment of the Calibration of Individualized Treatment Effects.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- From Inference to Ritual: Why Frequentist Statistics Became Hard to Understand and Teach in Medicine.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- Perinatal women dominantly protect-rather than submissively cede-resources when interacting with threatening-looking others.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Confidence regions for multiple outcomes, effect modifiers, and other multiple comparisons.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Exploring the proper use ofGlobal epidemiology · 2026Article
- Three little pigs and one big bad wolf: The parable of data sharing in epidemiology.Global epidemiology · 2026Article
- Giving less power to statistical power.Laboratory animals · 2025Article
- Comparative effectiveness of urine drug testing schedules alongside opioid agonist treatment: Emulation of a population-based target trial in British Columbia, Canada.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Article
- Some misinterpretations of Inferential statistics in dental public health literature.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Interpreting statistical evidence with S values: an illustration with trials of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy.Anaesthesia · 2025Article
17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
backgroundResearchers often misinterpret and misrepresent statistical outputs. This abuse has led to a large literature on modification or replacement of testing thresholds and P-values with confidence intervals, Bayes factors, and other devices. Because the core problems appear cognitive rather than statistical, we review some simple methods to aid researchers in interpreting statistical outputs. These methods emphasize logical and information concepts over probability, and thus may be more robust to common misinterpretations than are traditional descriptions.
methodsWe use the Shannon transform of the P-value p, also known as the binary surprisal or S-value s = -log
conclusionsIn line with other recent recommendations, we advise that teaching materials and research reports discuss P-values as measures of compatibility rather than significance, compute P-values for alternative hypotheses whenever they are computed for null hypotheses, and interpret interval estimates as showing values of high compatibility with data, rather than regions of confidence. Our recommendations emphasize cognitive devices for displaying the compatibility of the observed data with various hypotheses of interest, rather than focusing on single hypothesis tests or interval estimates. We believe these simple reforms are well worth the minor effort they require.
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.