ReviewJB & JS open access
The Trend to Use the Word "Trend" to Describe Nonsignificant Results in Orthopaedic Literature.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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
Introduction: Use of the word "trend" for statistical judgment with no statistical significance has been recognized in multiple fields of medical literature. "Trend" is sometimes used to describe "nearly significant" findings when they are not statistically significant. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of the word "trend" to describe nonsignificant findings in orthopaedic publications. Methods: Orthopaedic journals indexed in MEDLINE were identified using the terms: orthopedics OR orthopaedics OR sports medicine OR orthopedic OR orthopaedic. Abstracts from these journals that contained the word "trend" from 1985 to 2022 were identified. Journals containing literature on nonhuman orthopaedics were excluded. "Trend" used for statistical judgment without a p-value or with a nonsignificant p-value was labeled "NS Trend". Use of "trend" not in the context of statistical tests was labeled as "dictionary usage" of the word. Results: A total of 59,839 article abstracts were identified, with "trend" being used in 1,029 abstracts (1.7%). "NS Trend" was used in 617 abstracts (60%) to describe significant results when the p-value was not given or not actually significant. There was a strong correlation over time with increasing use of the word "trend" in orthopaedic abstracts (r = 0.956). An exponential rise in "NS Trend" usage was found (r = 0.924; R Conclusion: The word "trend" is increasingly being used in orthopaedic literature, including suggesting statistical significance when absent. Misinterpretation of statistical analyses can lead to research conclusions that push readers toward inappropriate treatments. It is imperative that we clearly communicate our statistical findings and not use ambiguous language. The word "trend" should only be used to describe an actual trend analysis and not to imply statistical significance when none is present.
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.