Trial reportBMJ open2022
Influence of the statistical significance of results and spin on readers' interpretation of the results in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial: a randomised trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recommendations for Human Sperm Morphology Assessment in 2025: An Expert Review From the French BLEFCO Group.Andrology · 2026Guideline
- Trial
- Misleading readers without lies: understanding spin and its relevance to acupuncture research.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Exploring the methodological quality and risk of bias in 200 systematic reviews: A comparative study of ROBIS and AMSTAR-2 tools.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Article
- Scientists' perception of pilot study quality was influenced by statistical significance and study design.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the impact on readers' interpretation of the results reported in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial with (1) a statistically significant result (SSR), (2) spin, (3) both an SSR and spin compared with (4) no spin and no SSR.
participantsHealth students and professionals from universities and health institutions in France and the UK.
interventionsParticipants completed an online questionnaire using Likert scales and free text, after reading one of the four versions of an abstract about a hypothetical randomised trial evaluating 'Naranex' and 'Bulofil' (two hypothetical drugs) for chronic low back pain. The abstracts differed in (1) reported result of 'mean difference of 1.31 points (95% CI 0.08 to 2.54, p= 0.04)' or 'mean difference of 1.31 points (95% CI -0.08 to 2.70, p= 0.06)' and (2) presence or absence of spin. The effect size for the trial's primary outcome (pain disability score) was the same in each abstract, slightly in favour of Naranex. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The reader's interpretation of the trial's results, based on their answer (1, disagree; 4, neutral; 7, agree) to the following statement: 'About the main findings of the study, what is your opinion about the following statement: 'Naranex is better than Bulofil'?'
resultsTwo hundred and ninety-seven of the 404 people randomised to receive one of the four abstracts completed the study. Respondents were more likely to favour Narenex when the abstract reported an SSR without spin, a statistically significant result with spin, a non-statistically significant result with spin, compared with when it reported a non-SSR without spin.
conclusionStatistical significance appears to have influenced readers' perception whatever the level of spin, while spin influenced readers' perception when the results were not statistically significant but did not appear to have an impact when results were statistically significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.