{
  "abstract": "Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have the potential to change clinical practice. Nevertheless, concerns persist regarding the interpretation of statistical analyses, particularly hypothesis testing. Over-reliance on the ubiquitous 0.05 significance threshold has led researchers to make potentially inappropriate statements about their findings. A critical issue is the erroneous ‘acceptance’ of the null hypothesis instead of correctly stating a ‘failure to reject’ when results are statistically non-significant.1 While statistical reporting practices have been explored in cardiology research,2 there has been limited focus on inappropriate interpretations of hypothesis testing. Therefore, we aimed to examine their occurrence among five major cardiology journals.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria"
      ],
      "name": "Amin Sharifan"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Division of Cardiology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA"
      ],
      "name": "Gregg Fonarow"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Towards accurate interpretation of hypothesis testing in cardiology randomised controlled clinical trials",
  "uid": "7199b09c-9c95-5235-9d22-a5ebb6f23e64"
}