ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2020
Effect size reporting among prominent health journals: a case study of odds ratios.
Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Centrally-acting opioid receptor antagonists as a treatment for antipsychotic-induced weight gain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trial data.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- A Fall Prevention Feasibility Trial for People With HIV and Alcohol Use.OTJR : occupation, participation and health · 2025Trial
- Four-Dimensional Impact of Oral Behaviours on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Across TMD Subtypes: A Parallel Multivariate Exploration.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Reduced occurrence of alpha waves during resting state predicts high attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder traits in young adults.JCPP advances · 2026Article
- Case management in emergency care: insights on health-related quality of life from the Case management for At-Risk patients in the Emergency Department (CARED) programme.Singapore medical journal · 2026Article
- Attachment networks in young adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of statistical reporting that informs medical and public health practice has generated extensive debate, but no studies have evaluated the frequency or accuracy of effect size (the magnitude of change in outcome as a function of change in predictor) reporting in prominent health journals.
objectiveTo evaluate effect size reporting practices in prominent health journals using the case study of ORs.
designArticles published in the MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We report prevalence of articles using ORs, reporting effect sizes from ORs (reporting the magnitude of change in outcome as a function of change in predictor) and reporting correct effect sizes.
resultsThe proportion of articles using ORs in the past decade declined in
conclusionsArticles that used ORs in prominent journals frequently omitted presenting the effect size of their predictor variables. When reported, the presented effect size was usually incorrect. When used, ORs should be paired with accurate effect size interpretations. New editorial and research reporting standards to improve effect size reporting and its accuracy should be considered.
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.