Disparity between statistical and clinical significance in published randomised controlled trials indexed in PubMed: a protocol for a cross-sectional methodological survey

The commonly used frequentist paradigm of null hypothesis statistics testing with its reliance on the p-value and the corresponding notion of 'statistical significance' has been under ongoing criticism. Misinterpretation and misuse of the p-value have contributed to publication bias, unreliable studies, frequent false positives, fraud and mistrust in results of scientific studies. While p-values themselves are still useful, part of the problem may be the confusion between statistical and clinical significance. In randomised controlled trials of health interventions, this confusion could lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment efficacy, research waste and compromised patient outcomes. The extent to which clinical and statistical significance of published randomised clinical trials do not match is not known. This is a protocol for a methodological study to understand the extent of the problem of disparities between statistical and clinical significance in published clinical trials, and to identify and assess the factors associated with discrepant results in these studies.