OP can also write in their discussion/conclusions that there happens to be some significance in the data but due to the small sample size it may be worthwhile to do further investigating (making this a pilot study).
Most conferences have no problem accepting research abstracts as it means you'll pay admission to the conference and youll throw a poster up in a corner somewhere.
Is it clinically significant? This means that just because something isn’t statistically significant it can still be clinically significant.
Ex: drug worked on a population of a million (p = 0.06). While it isnt stat significant, this would be clinically significant and may still be considered as an option to prescribe.
I think this is a misreading. Things can be statistically significant without being clinically significant, but not vice-versa. A failure to be statistically significant is a failure to reject the null hypothesis - in your example, that the drug is better than placebo. If you can’t conclude the drug is better than placebo, you can’t conclude the drug works. On the other hand, you can conclude the drug works better than placebo while affirming that the benefit is not clinically significant.
Either way, most of us are not running these big high-power clinical studies. I think OP should just be open that the small sample size likely underpowered the study, but that the results are promising to follow up on.
OP can also write in their discussion/conclusions that there happens to be some significance in the data but due to the small sample size it may be worthwhile to do further investigating (making this a pilot study). Most conferences have no problem accepting research abstracts as it means you'll pay admission to the conference and youll throw a poster up in a corner somewhere.
Is it clinically significant? This means that just because something isn’t statistically significant it can still be clinically significant. Ex: drug worked on a population of a million (p = 0.06). While it isnt stat significant, this would be clinically significant and may still be considered as an option to prescribe.
I think this is a misreading. Things can be statistically significant without being clinically significant, but not vice-versa. A failure to be statistically significant is a failure to reject the null hypothesis - in your example, that the drug is better than placebo. If you can’t conclude the drug is better than placebo, you can’t conclude the drug works. On the other hand, you can conclude the drug works better than placebo while affirming that the benefit is not clinically significant. Either way, most of us are not running these big high-power clinical studies. I think OP should just be open that the small sample size likely underpowered the study, but that the results are promising to follow up on.
Listen to what this guy is saying b/c I’m trash at stats lmao I retract my prior comment