ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2023
Scientists' perception of pilot study quality was influenced by statistical significance and study design.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining predictors of scale-up penalty in preliminary studies of health behavior interventions and subsequent larger trials: a meta-epidemiological review of diverse fields.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Review
- Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Balancing best practice and reality in behavioral intervention development: A survey of principal investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health.Translational behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Are the Risk of Generalizability Biases Generalizable? A Meta-Epidemiological Study.Research square · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPreliminary studies play a key role in developing large-scale interventions but may be held to higher or lower scientific standards during the peer review process because of their preliminary study status. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingAbstracts from 5 published obesity prevention preliminary studies were systematically modified to generate 16 variations of each abstract. Variations differed by 4 factors: sample size (n = 20 vs. n = 150), statistical significance (P < 0.05 vs. P > 0.05), study design (single group vs. randomized 2 groups), and preliminary study status (presence/absence of pilot language). Using an online survey, behavioral scientists were provided with a randomly selected variation of each of the 5 abstracts and blinded to the existence of other variations. Respondents rated each abstract on aspects of study quality.
resultsBehavioral scientists (n = 271, 79.7% female, median age 34 years) completed 1,355 abstract ratings. Preliminary study status was not associated with perceived study quality. Statistically significant effects were rated as more scientifically significant, rigorous, innovative, clearly written, warranted further testing, and had more meaningful results. Randomized designs were rated as more rigorous, innovative, and meaningful.
conclusionFindings suggest reviewers place a greater value on statistically significant findings and randomized control design and may overlook other important study characteristics.
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.