I’m currently negotiating with some clinical collaborators about the wording to be included alongside some odds ratios and their associated significance tests. Two sections in particular have become sticking points, and I was hoping to get some feedback or suggestions. NB X and Y are different things in the two Sections.

**Section 1**

Original:

Nevertheless, there remained no statistically significant difference in the multivariable analysis, despite a trend for decreased Y when X was used (p = 0.06; OR 0.53 [95% CI 0.27 – 1.02])

My suggestion #1:

Multivariable analysis indicated that the use of X was associated with a lower rate of Y, although we could not rule out a small adverse association at the 5% significance level (p = 0.06; OR 0.53 [95% CI 0.27 – 1.02]).

My suggestion #2:

We observed a lower rate of Y in patients with X, but the multivariable analysis returned a wide plausible range for the magnitude of the association and we could not exclude the possibility that there is no association or a small adverse effect at the 5% significance level (p = 0.06; OR 0.53 [95% CI 0.27 – 1.02]).

**Section 2:**

Original:

We found no significant relationship between the addition of X and an increased incidence of Y (p = 0.4; OR 1.61 [95% CI 0.53 – 4.90]).

My suggestion #1:

Although the addition of X was associated with an increased incidence of Y in our data, we could not rule out the possibility of no difference, or a large protective effect (p = 0.4; OR 1.61 [95% CI 0.53 – 4.90]).

My suggestion #2:

Although there was a slightly higher rate of Y in patients who received X in our data, the wide 95% confidence interval indicates that we cannot draw a strong conclusion about the strength or direction of the true association (p = 0.4; OR 1.61 [95% CI 0.53 – 4.90]).

I’d be grateful for anyone’s thoughts.