ReviewClinical epidemiology2026
Making Statistics Clinically Meaningful.
Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The growth in evidence-based medicine clearly benefits patient care but it is important that evidence is accessible and usable. Translating research results into usable, meaningful information can be challenging and impede the implementation of robust evidence. There are many aspects to making the statistical parts of a research study actionable for practicing clinicians and policy makers. These include ensuring that the right questions are asked, the study is designed appropriately, and results are transparent and applicable to the clinical setting. In this perspectives-style article we offer guidance on these considerations by highlighting several approaches that we have found effective for improving the interpretability and practical application of statistical findings. Our over-arching aim is to stimulate interdisciplinary dialogue throughout the research process. Specifically, we discuss the interpretation of p-values, effect estimates, differences between means, scaling regression coefficients, unadjusted/adjusted estimates, Minimal Clinically Important Difference, absolute and relative risk, and suggest how clinical meaning can be enhanced by presenting the same information in different but complementary ways. We conclude with a recommendation that study teams prioritize interdisciplinary discussions around clinical meaningfulness throughout our research studies to maximize their clinical impact.
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.