ReviewKorean journal of anesthesiology2024
Alternatives to the P value: connotations of significance.
Review in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining emotion reactivity to politically polarizing media in a randomized controlled trial of mindfulness training versus active coping training.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Using Student-Reported Digital Daily Logs and Human-Verified AI-Assisted Reflection Coding to Describe Clinical Experiences in Community-Based Clerkships: Exploratory Observational Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- Article
- Establishing clinically important differences in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.General psychiatry · 2026Article
- Systemic inflammation indices and serum squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) antigen: an exploratory analysis on prognosis of patients with vulvar squamous cell carcinoma.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
- Single-cell Raman imaging reveals fructose impairs brown adipocyte differentiation.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2025Article
- Analgesic effects of transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum blocks are not clinically meaningful for laparoscopic nephrectomy: systematic review and network meta-analysis.The Korean journal of pain · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of two Bronchoscopy Knowledge Assessments.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2025Article
- Independence in Daily Activities and Living with Family: Predictors of Gratitude in Elderly with Disability in Indonesia.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
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
The statistical significance of a clinical trial analysis result is determined by a mathematical calculation and probability based on null hypothesis significance testing. However, statistical significance does not always align with meaningful clinical effects; thus, assigning clinical relevance to statistical significance is unreasonable. A statistical result incorporating a clinically meaningful difference is a better approach to present statistical significance. Thus, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which requires integrating minimum clinically relevant changes from the early stages of research design, has been introduced. As a follow-up to the previous statistical round article on P values, confidence intervals, and effect sizes, in this article, we present hands-on examples of MCID and various effect sizes and discuss the terms statistical significance and clinical relevance, including cautions regarding their use.
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.