Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39059809›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Disparity between statistical and clinical significance in published randomised controlled trials indexed in PubMed: a protocol for a cross-sectional methodological survey.

Tonya Marianne Esterhuizen, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Lehana Thabane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reporting of second-generationContemporary clinical trials communications · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tonya Marianne EsterhuizenDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa tonyae@sun.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0002-8703-1664
Lawrence MbuagbawDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-5855-5461
Lehana ThabaneDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-0355-9734

Funding

African Centre for Biostatistical ExcellenceD43TW010547 · FIC · STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY · PI Rhoderick Machekano, Taryn Natalie Young · 2017 to 2026
$3.1M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe commonly used frequentist paradigm of null hypothesis statistics testing with its reliance on the p-value and the corresponding notion of 'statistical significance' has been under ongoing criticism. Misinterpretation and misuse of the p-value have contributed to publication bias, unreliable studies, frequent false positives, fraud and mistrust in results of scientific studies. While p-values themselves are still useful, part of the problem may be the confusion between statistical and clinical significance. In randomised controlled trials of health interventions, this confusion could lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment efficacy, research waste and compromised patient outcomes. The extent to which clinical and statistical significance of published randomised clinical trials do not match is not known. This is a protocol for a methodological study to understand the extent of the problem of disparities between statistical and clinical significance in published clinical trials, and to identify and assess the factors associated with discrepant results in these studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A methodological survey of published randomised controlled trials is planned. Trials published between 2018 and 2022 and their protocols will be searched and screened for inclusion, with a planned sample size of 500 studies. The reported minimum clinically important difference, the study effect size and confidence intervals will be used to assess clinical importance of trial results. Comparison of statistical significance and clinical importance of the trial results will be used to determine disparity. Data will be analysed to estimate the outcomes, and factors associated with disparate study results will be assessed using logistic regression analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by Stellenbosch University's Health Research Ethics Committee. This is part of a larger study towards a PhD in Biostatistics and will be disseminated as a thesis, conference abstract and peer-reviewed manuscript.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical RelevanceCross-Sectional StudiesData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansPublication BiasResearch Designclinical trialepidemiologystatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID39059809
PMCPMC11284888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.