ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2025
The misunderstood P-value: why statistical significance is not enough in clinical practice.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association between preoperative frailty and 30-day functional disability after surgery: a prospective cohort study using the Edmonton Frail Scale.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Health-related quality of life among adult cancer patients with and without HIV: Analysis of SEER-MHOS data (2007-2017).Journal of geriatric oncology · 2026Article
- Skin thickness alterations in pressure injury tissue: insights from high-frequency ultrasound and mixed-design analysis of variance.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Defining the islet: a minimum size threshold and opportunities for standardization.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Confidence interval reporting in randomised controlled trials: A critical analysis of IJA publications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
P-values have traditionally guided clinical research, but over-reliance on them can lead to misinterpretation and poor decision-making. This article highlights common misconceptions about P-values and suggests incorporating the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) along with other metrics such as effect sizes and Bayesian methods. Evidence-based practice is essential in anaesthesiology, and research findings should be evaluated in the context of patient outcomes to guide clinical decisions.
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.