Are potentially clinically meaningful benefits misinterpreted in cardiovascular randomized trials? A systematic examination of statistical significance, clinical significance, and authors’ conclusions
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 13 November 2016
Accepted: 16 February 2017
Published: 20 March 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|13 Nov 2016||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|2 Dec 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Werner Vach|
|22 Dec 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Wendy Parulekar|
|23 Jan 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Gary Allan|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|23 Jan 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|13 Feb 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Werner Vach|
|13 Feb 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Wendy Parulekar|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|16 Feb 2017||Editorially accepted|
|20 Mar 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12916-017-0821-9|
How does Open Peer Review work?
Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org. All previous versions of the manuscript and all author responses to the reviewers are also available.
You can find further information about the peer review system here.