Statistical Non-Significance, Likelihood Ratio, and The Interpretation of Clinical Trial Evidence: Insights from Heart Failure Randomized Trials
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard for assessing the efficacy of novel interventions in heart failure (HF) management. Therefore, an accurate interpretation of RCT results is critical. When trials have statistically non-significant primary outcomes with a P value >0.05, these are often deemed “negative” or “neutral”. Such results are perceived to confirm a lack of evidence and the intervention is considered “ineffective” (1–3). However, failure to reach a standard threshold for statistical significance does not necessarily indicate that the experimental intervention lacks efficacy (4).
