ArticlePeerJ2021
The reporting of
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conclusions reported in European Orthodontic Congress poster abstracts: are they based on clinical or statistical significance?European journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- The use of 'trend' statements in veterinary oncology literature.Veterinary and comparative oncology · 2022Article
- Reporting of confidence intervals, achievement of intended sample size, and adjustment for multiple primary outcomes in randomised trials of physical therapy interventions: an analysis of 100 representatively sampled trials.Brazilian journal of physical therapyReview
- Reporting and interpreting statistical results in veterinary medicine: Calling for change.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite much discussion in the epidemiologic literature surrounding the use of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) for inferences, the reporting practices of veterinary researchers have not been examined. We conducted a survey of articles published in Preventive Veterinary Medicine, a leading veterinary epidemiology journal, aimed at (a) estimating the frequency of reporting
methodsWe used systematic cluster sampling to select 985 original research articles from issues published in March, June, September and December of each year of the study period. Using the survey data analysis menu in Stata, we estimated overall and yearly proportions of article sections (abstracts, results-texts, results-tables and discussions) reporting
resultsOver the 20-year period, for every 100 published manuscripts, 31 abstracts (95% CI [28-35]), 65 results-texts (95% CI [61-68]), 23 sets of results-tables (95% CI [20-27]) and 59 discussion sections (95% CI [56-63]) reported statistical significance at least once. Only in the case of results-tables, were the numbers reporting
conclusionsDespite the availability of superior approaches to statistical inference and abundant criticism of its use in the epidemiologic literature, NHST is substantially the most common means of inference in articles published in Preventive Veterinary Medicine. This pattern has not changed substantially between 1997 and 2017.
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.