Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42771806›Full record

ReviewRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2026

[Interpretation of effect measures in clinical research: A practical guide for the clinician].

Angelica Jeanette Luevanos-Aguilera

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Angelica Jeanette Luevanos-AguileraInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Órgano de Operación Administrativa Desconcentrada Guanajuato, Unidad de Investigación en Epidemiología Clínica del Bajío. León, Guanajuato, México.ORCID 0000-0001-9230-3073

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern medical practice faces an ever-growing volume of information that demands accurate statistical interpretation to guide clinical decision-making. Effect measures are essential tools for quantifying the true magnitude of an intervention and assessing its clinical impact. However, limited understanding of these measures among healthcare professionals often hinders the effective translation of evidence into everyday practice. This article's objective is to provide a clear and didactic overview of the principal effect measures used in clinical research, emphasizing their relevance to evidence-based medicine. Key concepts such as the p-value, confidence intervals, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and number needed to treat are summarized. The p-value reflects statistical significance, but it does not convey the magnitude or clinical importance of an effect. Confidence intervals, on the other hand, offer information about the precision and direction of the estimated effect. Relative risk facilitates the comparison of probabilities between groups, while absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat provide more tangible measures for clinical application. The adequate interpretation of these concepts is a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, it enables clinicians to critically appraise research findings, and make patient-centered decisions, thereby narrowing the gap between scientific evidence and clinical practice.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEvidence-Based MedicineClinical Decision-MakingData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansClinical Decision-MakingClinical Research ProtocolsData Interpretation, StatisticalEvidence-Based MedicineInterpretación Estadística de DatosMedicina Basada en la EvidenciaProtocolos de Investigación ClínicaToma de Decisiones Clínicas

Identifiers

PMID42771806
PMCPMC13600739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.