Reporting and interpreting statistical results in veterinary medicine: Calling for change

Abstract Understanding and correctly interpreting statistical results presented in scientific articles is a required skill for practicing evidence‐based veterinary medicine. A prerequisite for doing so is the adequate reporting of the results in scientific journals. However, most authors of veterinary publications determine the importance of their findings based on statistical significance (ie, P < .05), indicating that neither the limitations of using P values for inference nor the existence of more appropriate alternatives are widely appreciated in veterinary medicine. This deficiency in knowledge indicates a need to increase awareness in veterinary medicine regarding reporting statistical measures that quantify the magnitude of an effect along with its level of uncertainty, and then interpreting these results for clinical decision making. We utilize a hypothetical randomized controlled trial of dietary management in cats with chronic kidney disease to discuss some common misconceptions about P values and provide practical suggestions for alternatives. Reporting appropriate effect estimates along with their confidence intervals will allow veterinarians to easily and correctly determine whether the magnitude of the effect of interest meets clinical needs while acknowledging uncertainty in the results. We also describe confidence interval functions and show their utility as visual tools in aiding interpretation of confidence intervals. By providing practical guidance, we show that a change in reporting and interpreting statistical results is feasible and necessary. We hope this crucial step will promote clinical decision making based on effect estimates and confidence intervals.