A *substantive effect size interpretation* (interpretation), for the purpose of this study, is a statement about the magnitude of change in the outcome as a function of change in the predictor from the reported OR. Solely reporting the OR or its directionality was not considered a substantive interpretation. A *correct substantive interpretation* is an interpretation that accurately reflects the definition of the OR, as described in commentary by Davies *et al*6 and Norton *et al*.7 For example, if the OR were 1.5, the interpretation “50% increase in odds” would be correct, while “50% more likely” would be incorrect. Correct interpretations could also include other interpretations resulting from logistic regression that use the OR as an intermediary (eg, change in probability, marginal risk). |

**Example phrases** | **Label** | **Reason** |

“… male sex was associated with seeking treatment (OR=2)…” | No interpretation | The OR was presented as a parenthetical statement only. |

“… was associated with decreased odds (OR=0.5) …” | No interpretation | Only the direction of the association was reported. |

“… were three times more likely (OR = 3) …” | Incorrect interpretation | An interpretation was made by incorrectly expressing ‘odds’ as ‘likeliness’. |

“… was associated with a 30% reduction in the log odds (OR=0.7) …” | Incorrect interpretation | An interpretation was made by expressing the ratio of log odds but reported the OR. |

“… were associated with a threefold increase in the odds (OR=3) …” | Correct interpretation | An interpretation was made by expressing the ratio of odds. |

“… each was associated with a 10% reduction in the odds of treatment failure (OR=0.90) …” | Correct interpretation | An interpretation was made by expressing the ratio of odds. |