Abstract
A recent IJHPR article by Azulay et al. found no association between the patient activation measure (PAM) and adherence to colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test result. This commentary will use that article as a jumping-off point to discuss why studies sometimes get negative results and how one should interpret such results. It will explore why the Azulay study had negative findings and describe what can be learnt from this study, despite the negative findings.It is important to publish studies with negative findings to know which interventions do not have an effect, avoid publication bias, allow robust meta-analyses, and to encourage sub-analyses to generate new hypotheses.To support these goals authors must submit articles with negative findings with sufficient detail to support the above aims and perform sub-analyses to identify additional relationships that merit study.The commentary will discuss the importance of publishing articles in which the hypothesis is not proven and demonstrate how such articles should be written to maximize learning from their negative findings.
Highlights
A recent IJHPR article by Azulay et al found no association between the patient activation measure (PAM) and adherence to colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test result
In a recent IJHPR article, Azulay et al explored the factors associated with whether a patient underwent a recommended colonoscopy after having an abnormal result when screened with a fecal occult blood test (FOBT)
As is the case with most studies, their study design and methodology had several flaws. Despite these flaws and the lack of a finding of an association, much can be learned from the Azulay study
Summary
A recent IJHPR article by Azulay et al found no association between the patient activation measure (PAM) and adherence to colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test result. One could do a power analysis to determine how large a study would be needed to find this difference to be statistically significant. Because of the retrospective assessment of PAM, patient activation might have been influenced by the test results themselves, another form of bias.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
