Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42359249›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026

To adjust or not to adjust? Matching statistical choices to scientific questions in exercise physiology and sport science.

Gudrun Schappacher-Tilp, Markus Tilp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Gudrun Schappacher-TilpDepartment of Engineering, FH JOANNEUM- University of Applied Sciences, Graz, Austria.
Markus TilpDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Sport and Health, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adjustment for multiple statistical tests has become a default marker of rigor in clinical and health research. We argue that its routine application is often conceptually inappropriate and can obscure meaningful results. The need for multiplicity correction depends not simply on how many tests are performed, but on the inferential question being asked. When the aim is to determine whether any detectable effect exists, an omnibus test is the appropriate inferential tool, and subsequent

Indexed as

familywise errormultiplicity adjustmentsmultiplicity correctionOmnibus testpost hoc teststatistics

Identifiers

PMID42359249
PMCPMC13290680

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.