= Solution
The clinical interview produced far fewer events, so the trial may have had substantially less <statistical power> for that measurement than for the screening-scale threshold. Its intervention-versus-control difference is less striking: the crude event proportions are about $4.7\%$ and $7.3\%$, based on only 37 diagnoses altogether. A concise abstract may therefore have emphasized the more statistically convincing screening result. These are possible explanations, not evidence of the authors' motives.
Nevertheless, a prespecified primary measure should not disappear merely because its result is less favourable. <Selective outcome reporting> could make the evidence seem more consistent across primary measurements than it is. A reasonable abstract should at least acknowledge the clinical result and its uncertainty, while distinguishing a positive screen from a diagnosis. Limited space can justify brevity, but not a misleading implication that both primary measures provide the same evidence.
The unexpectedly low clinical prevalence also merits investigation, including the telephone interview's implementation, timing, recruitment and diagnostic definition. A <meta-analysis> of different studies is not automatically a like-for-like reference population; its higher pooled percentage does not by itself establish measurement failure in this trial.
Back to article page
