ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Interpretation of statistical findings in randomised trials: a survey of statisticians using thematic analysis of open-ended questions.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating minimal, moderate, and marked clinically important differences for patient reported outcome measure in randomised controlled trial.Chinese medical journal · 2026Trial
- Rasch models to assess the impact of lack of measurement invariance and reveal hidden differences in anxiety and depression between groups and over time in patients with early-stage melanoma or breast cancer using the RespOnse Shift ALgorithm at the Item level (ROSALI).BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Methodological Caution in Interpreting Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol-Alfentanil Sedation for Pediatric Bronchoscopy [Letter].Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDichotomisation of statistical significance, rather than interpretation of effect sizes supported by confidence intervals, is a long-standing problem.
methodsWe distributed an online survey to clinical trial statisticians across the UK, Australia and Canada asking about their experiences, perspectives and practices with respect to interpretation of statistical findings from randomised trials. We report a descriptive analysis of the closed-ended questions and a thematic analysis of the open-ended questions.
resultsWe obtained 101 responses across a broad range of career stages (24% professors; 51% senior lecturers; 22% junior statisticians) and areas of work (28% early phase trials; 44% drug trials; 38% health service trials). The majority (93%) believed that statistical findings should be interpreted by considering (minimal) clinical importance of treatment effects, but many (61%) said quantifying clinically important effect sizes was difficult, and fewer (54%) followed this approach in practice. Thematic analysis identified several barriers to forming a consensus on the statistical interpretation of the study findings, including: the dynamics within teams, lack of knowledge or difficulties in communicating that knowledge, as well as external pressures. External pressures included the pressure to publish definitive findings and statistical review which can sometimes be unhelpful but can at times be a saving grace. However, the concept of the minimally important difference was identified as a particularly poorly defined, even nebulous, construct which lies at the heart of much disagreement and confusion in the field.
conclusionThe majority of participating statisticians believed that it is important to interpret statistical findings based on the clinically important effect size, but report this is difficult to operationalise. Reaching a consensus on the interpretation of a study is a social process involving disparate members of the research team along with editors and reviewers, as well as patients who likely have a role in the elicitation of minimally important differences.
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.