Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: For decades the p value-based interpretation and reporting of trials’ results dominated the publications. Nowadays, scientific community agrees that this binary approach is not enough. Institutional reform is necessary for moving beyond statistical significance in any context—journals, education, academic incentive systems, or others. Several papers in this special issue focus on reform. Goodman (2019) notes considerable social change is needed in academic institutions, in journals, and among funding and regulatory agencies. Trafimow (2019), who added energy to the discussion of p-values a few years ago by banning them from the journal he edits, suggested five “non-obvious changes” to editorial practice. These suggestions, which demand reevaluating traditional practices in editorial policy, will not be trivial to implement but would result in massive change in some journals.
The edition 6 of the Cochrane Handbook, in the chapter for "Interpreting results and drawing conclusions" makes some comments about the point estimate, the confidence interval and the p-value, and suggests some narrative statements. However, we are not sure how much Cochrane editors and authors and health care consumers agrees with this suggestions and, even more important, if all retrieve the same conclusions when they look at some specific results.
Objectives: To evaluate how Cochrane editors and authors interprete different results and to analyse which form of reporting they agree with mostly.
Methods: We are conducting an online survey among Cochrane editors and authors, and we will also make a survey among a sample of health care consumers. They are receiving some different results and have to state which is the reporting style that fits better with their interpretation of the results.
Results: will be shown at the colloquium.
Conclusions: It will be interesting to see the level of agreement or disagreement among the Cochrane community, and what health care consumers think about it.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Healthcare consumers will participate in the survey.
The edition 6 of the Cochrane Handbook, in the chapter for "Interpreting results and drawing conclusions" makes some comments about the point estimate, the confidence interval and the p-value, and suggests some narrative statements. However, we are not sure how much Cochrane editors and authors and health care consumers agrees with this suggestions and, even more important, if all retrieve the same conclusions when they look at some specific results.
Objectives: To evaluate how Cochrane editors and authors interprete different results and to analyse which form of reporting they agree with mostly.
Methods: We are conducting an online survey among Cochrane editors and authors, and we will also make a survey among a sample of health care consumers. They are receiving some different results and have to state which is the reporting style that fits better with their interpretation of the results.
Results: will be shown at the colloquium.
Conclusions: It will be interesting to see the level of agreement or disagreement among the Cochrane community, and what health care consumers think about it.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Healthcare consumers will participate in the survey.