Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVES: To 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. PARTICIPANTS: Health students and professio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jankowski, Sofyan, Boutron, Isabelle, Clarke, Mike
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8996040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35396295
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056503
_version_ 1784684413024468992
author Jankowski, Sofyan
Boutron, Isabelle
Clarke, Mike
author_facet Jankowski, Sofyan
Boutron, Isabelle
Clarke, Mike
author_sort Jankowski, Sofyan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To 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. PARTICIPANTS: Health students and professionals from universities and health institutions in France and the UK. INTERVENTIONS: Participants 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’?’ RESULTS: Two 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. CONCLUSION: Statistical 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8996040
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89960402022-04-27 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 Jankowski, Sofyan Boutron, Isabelle Clarke, Mike BMJ Open Epidemiology OBJECTIVES: To 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. PARTICIPANTS: Health students and professionals from universities and health institutions in France and the UK. INTERVENTIONS: Participants 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’?’ RESULTS: Two 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. CONCLUSION: Statistical 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8996040/ /pubmed/35396295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056503 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Jankowski, Sofyan
Boutron, Isabelle
Clarke, Mike
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8996040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35396295
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056503
work_keys_str_mv AT jankowskisofyan influenceofthestatisticalsignificanceofresultsandspinonreadersinterpretationoftheresultsinanabstractforahypotheticalclinicaltrialarandomisedtrial
AT boutronisabelle influenceofthestatisticalsignificanceofresultsandspinonreadersinterpretationoftheresultsinanabstractforahypotheticalclinicaltrialarandomisedtrial
AT clarkemike influenceofthestatisticalsignificanceofresultsandspinonreadersinterpretationoftheresultsinanabstractforahypotheticalclinicaltrialarandomisedtrial