Back to search

Article

Cross-sectional analysis: interpretation of non-statistically significant results in randomised controlled clinical trials in rehabilitation

2024-09-16

Abstract excerpt

<h4>ABSTRACT</h4> <h4>Introduction</h4> Despite the CONSORT guidelines, which aim to improve the quality of studies, authors often formulate conclusions based on the dichotomous distinction of the p-value, declaring differences between ‘statistically significant’ and ‘non-significant’. This approach confuses the identification of the real efficacy of the studied treatment. To solve this problem, CONSORT guidelines...

Topics

Open a Topic to create a Post that cites this publication.

Identifiers and source

Literature Corpus work
3c1840f1-366e-5796-ba80-cfcd6f70059e
DOI
10.1101/2024.09.16.24313294
Open publication

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest
Interactive article relationship graphSelect a related publication card to move it into the centre and load its closest explainable connections. Solid lines are source-backed structured connections. Dashed lines are semantic discovery signals and are not scientific evidence.
Cross-sectional analysis: interpretation of non-statistically significant results in randomised controlled clinical trials in rehabilitationDOI 10.1101/2024.09.16.24313294
Almost significant: trends and P values in the use of phrases describing marginally significant results in 567,758 randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2020Semantic proximity
Use and appropriateness of Reporting Guidelines in physical therapy research: a protocol for a meta-research studySemantic proximity
Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in three leading sports medicine journals over 10 yearsSemantic proximity
Randomized clinical trial quality has improved over time but is still not good enough: an analysis of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018Semantic proximity
Quality of reporting in abstracts in clinical trials of physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for AbstractsSemantic proximity
How does the risk of bias influence the effect sizes of exercise therapy in chronic low back pain randomised controlled trials? A protocol for a meta-epidemiological studySemantic proximity
A Methodological Review of Randomised n-of-1 Trials.Semantic proximity
Redundancy, quality appraisal, and discordance in the results of systematic reviews of early mobilization of critically ill adults. A meta-research protocolSemantic proximity
Methodological Rigor and Quality of Reporting of Clinical Trials Published with Physical Activity Interventions: A Report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)Semantic proximity
Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of angina pectoris with integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine interventions: a cross-sectional studySemantic proximity
The Evidence-Based Research approach for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research. A meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals to those of leading journals with the highest impact factorSemantic proximity
Selection bias risk in “low bias” (RoB 2) rated randomised control trials (Preprint)Semantic proximity
Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.