‘Not clinically effective but cost-effective’ - paradoxical conclusions in randomised controlled trials with ‘doubly null’ results: a cross-sectional study
James Raftery; Hywel C Williams; Aileen Clarke; Jim Thornton; John Norrie; Helen Snooks; Ken Stein · 2020 · BMJ Open
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
The finding, in one line
“Some show small differences which are not statistically significant.”
Abstract (excerpt)
OBJECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials in healthcare increasingly include economic evaluations. Some show small differences which are not statistically significant. Yet these sometimes come to paradoxical conclusions such as: 'the…
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes
Negative / Null Result ReportMicrocredit in Theory and Practice: Using Randomized Credit Scoring for Impact Evaluation
Negative / Null Result ReportThe Cost of Carbon: Capital Market Effects of the Proposed Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)
Negative / Null Result ReportPushing on a string: US monetary policy is less powerful in recessions ∗
Negative / Null Result ReportThe Evidence on Globalisation
Negative / Null Result ReportStatistical tests for power-law cross-correlated processes
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029596