Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 12, 2019

Differences in Nominal Significance (DINS) Error leads to invalid conclusions: Letter regarding, “Diet enriched with fresh coconut decreases blood glucose levels and body weight in normal adults”

Cynthia M. Kroeger EMAIL logo , Andrew W. Brown and David B. Allison


Supported in part by the National Institutes of Health, grants F32DK107157, R25DK099080, and R25HL124208. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or any other organization.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


[1] Vijayakumar V, Shankar NR, Mavathur R, Mooventhan A, Anju S, Manjunath NK. Diet enriched with fresh coconut decreases blood glucose levels and body weight in normal adults. J Complement Integr Med. 2018;15.10.1515/jcim-2017-0097Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Gelman A, Stern H. The difference between “Significant” and “Not Significant” is not itself statistically significant. Am Statist. 2006;60:328–31.10.1198/000313006X152649Search in Google Scholar

[3] Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparisons against baseline within randomised groups are often used and can be highly misleading. Trials. 2011;12:264.10.1186/1745-6215-12-264Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[4] Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA. Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature. 2016;530:27–9.10.1038/530027aSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[5] George BJ, Beasley TM, Brown AW, Dawson J, Dimova R, Divers J, et al. Common scientific and statistical errors in obesity research. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016;24:781–90.10.1002/oby.21449Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[6] Allison DB, Antoine LH, George BJ. Incorrect statistical method in parallel-groups RCT led to unsubstantiated conclusions. Lipids Health Dis. 2016;15:77.10.1186/s12944-016-0242-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[7] Cassani RS, Fassini PG, Silvah JH, Lima CM, Marchini JS. Retraction note: impact of weight loss diet associated with flaxseed on inflammatory markers in men with cardiovascular risk factors: a clinical study. Nutr J. 2016;15:59.10.1186/s12937-016-0165-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[8] Bland JM, Altman DG. Best (but oft forgotten) practices: testing for treatment effects in randomized trials by separate analyses of changes from baseline in each group is a misleading approach. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102:991–4.10.3945/ajcn.115.119768Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Committee on publication ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines. Available at: in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-03-21
Accepted: 2019-02-25
Published Online: 2019-06-12

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 27.1.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow