ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Bayesian Reanalysis of Statistically Nonsignificant Outcomes in Plastic Surgery Clinical Trials.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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.
- Statistical Reporting in Plastic Surgery Research.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- A Bayesian reevaluation of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproductive technology: quantifying evidence strength for null and alternative hypotheses.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Comment on: "Robotic versus open surgery for ureteroenteric stricture after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis".Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Statistically nonsignificant randomized clinical trial (RCT) results are challenging to interpret, as they are unable to prove the absence of a difference between treatment groups. Bayesian analysis offers an alternative statistical framework capable of providing a comprehensive understanding of nonsignificant results. Methods: This cross-sectional study conducted a post hoc Bayesian analysis of statistically nonsignificant outcomes from RCTs published in Results: In 73 studies with 176 statistically nonsignificant outcomes, 160 (91%) indicated evidence for the absence of a difference (Bayes factor > 1). For 110 (63%) of these, the Bayes factor was between 1 and 3, indicating weak evidence for the absence of a difference; 16 (9.1%) results supported the presence of a difference (Bayes factor < 1). A greater Conclusions: Nearly two-thirds of nonsignificant RCT outcomes provided only weak evidence supporting the absence of a difference. This uncertainty poses challenges for clinical decision-making and highlights the inefficiency in resource utilization. Integrating Bayesian statistics into future trial design and analysis could overcome these challenges, enhancing result interpretability and guiding medical practice and research.
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.