ReviewThe Journal of arthroplasty2022
P-Values and Power in Orthopedic Research: Myths and Reality.
Review in The Journal of arthroplasty, 2022. 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.
- Recurring low statistical robustness in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review of 84 fragility index studies.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Evolution in the Use of Statistical Testing in the Field of Orthopedics From 1993 to 2023.Cureus · 2024Review
- Study Types in Orthopaedics Research: Is My Study Design Appropriate for the Research Question?The Journal of arthroplasty · 2022Observational
- Avoiding Systematic Bias in Orthopedics Research Through Informed Variable Selection: A Discussion of Confounders, Mediators, and Colliders.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The results of statistical tests in orthopedic studies are typically reported using P-values. If a P-value is smaller than the pre-determined level of significance (eg, < .05), the null hypothesis is rejected in support of the alternative. This automaticity in interpreting statistical results without consideration of the power of the study has been denounced over the years by statisticians, since it can potentially lead to misinterpretation of the study conclusions. In this paper, we review fundamental misconceptions and misinterpretations of P-values and power, along with their connection with confidence intervals, and we provide guidelines to orthopedic researchers for evaluating and reporting study results. We provide real-world orthopedic examples to illustrate the main concepts. Please visit the followinghttps://youtu.be/bdPU4luYmF0for videos that explain the highlights of the paper in practical terms.
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.