Barely Significant
← all phrases

“borderline significant”

11,410 sentences · 11,410 papers · 14,072 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

53 In general populations, low-fat diets substituting fat for carbohydrate reduced HDL cholesterol (overall range: −0.01 to −0.09 mmol/L), 45–48 and the relationship was significant 46–48 or borderline significant. 45 Increasing MUFA to replace saturated fat was significantly associated with lower HDL cholesterol (mean: −0.002 mmol/L). 23 One study identified a statistically significant relationship between PUFA replacing saturated fat and lower HDL cholesterol (mean:−0.005 mmol/L), 23 whereas three reported non-significant findings. 39 40 54 Two studies of PUFA replacing other dietary energy in populations with diabetes report different direction of effects for HDL 41 52 and both were statistically significant.
Multiplicative interaction tests between mobile phone exposure and blood lead in association with ADHD symptoms were significant or borderline significant for the variables of ownership, age at first ownership of a mobile phone, and the number of outgoing calls per day, and the risk of ADHD symptoms was higher in the high lead group than that in the low lead group.
In terms of CVD death, the results from the REDUCE-IT [ 40 ], ASCEND [ 24 ], and GISSI-P [ 40 ] trials, which accounted for 31.4% of the sample size, were only borderline significant, with RRs and 95% CIs of 0.82 (0.67–0.99), 0.82 (0.67–0.99), and 0.84 (0.72–0.97), respectively ( Figure A2 and Figure A4 ).
With additional adjustment for factors that were considered to be either confounders or mediators of the association including BMI and diabetes status at baseline, the associations of more frequent bowel movements with stroke (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.22; P for trend = 0.03) became borderline significant, whereas the association with CVD (HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.13; P for trend = 0.04) and CHD (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.10; P for trend = 0.57) were no longer significant.
What should not be done? However, given that “statistical significance” is so frequently misreported and misinterpreted, there seems to be a consensus that terms such as ‘significant’, ‘statistically significant’, ‘borderline significant’, and their negative expressions, should not be reported anymore.
There is life beyond the statistical significance.
Reprod Health · 2021 · PMC8052638