Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant.
Data interpretation
Epidemiologic methods
Patient outcome assessment
Randomized clinical minimal clinically important difference
Sample size
Statistical
Trials
Journal
Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jul 2019
22 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
15
01
2019
accepted:
11
07
2019
entrez:
24
7
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
8
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
An observed statistically significant difference between two interventions does not necessarily imply that this difference is clinically important for patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess if treatment effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for low back pain (LBP) are statistically significant and clinically relevant, and if RCTs were powered to achieve clinically relevant differences on continuous outcomes. We searched for all RCTs included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews focusing on the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions for LBP and published until April 2017. RCTs having sample size calculation and a planned minimal important difference were considered. In the primary analysis, we calculated the proportion of RCTs classified as "statistically significant and clinically relevant", "statistically significant but not clinically relevant", "not statistically significant but clinically relevant", and "not statistically significant and not clinically relevant". Then, we investigated how many times the mismatch between statistical significance and clinical relevance was due to inadequate power. From 20 eligible SRs including 101 RCTs, we identified 42 RCTs encompassing 81 intervention comparisons. Overall, 60% (25 RCTs) were statistically significant while only 36% (15 RCTs) were both statistically and clinically significant. Most trials (38%) did not discuss the clinical relevance of treatment effects when results did not reached statistical significance. Among trials with non-statistically significant findings, 60% did not reach the planned sample size, therefore being at risk to not detect an effect that is actually there (type II error). Only a minority of positive RCT findings was both statistically significant and clinically relevant. Scarce diligence or frank omissions of important tactic elements of RCTs, such as clinical relevance, and power, decrease the reliability of study findings to current practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
An observed statistically significant difference between two interventions does not necessarily imply that this difference is clinically important for patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess if treatment effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for low back pain (LBP) are statistically significant and clinically relevant, and if RCTs were powered to achieve clinically relevant differences on continuous outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
We searched for all RCTs included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews focusing on the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions for LBP and published until April 2017. RCTs having sample size calculation and a planned minimal important difference were considered. In the primary analysis, we calculated the proportion of RCTs classified as "statistically significant and clinically relevant", "statistically significant but not clinically relevant", "not statistically significant but clinically relevant", and "not statistically significant and not clinically relevant". Then, we investigated how many times the mismatch between statistical significance and clinical relevance was due to inadequate power.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From 20 eligible SRs including 101 RCTs, we identified 42 RCTs encompassing 81 intervention comparisons. Overall, 60% (25 RCTs) were statistically significant while only 36% (15 RCTs) were both statistically and clinically significant. Most trials (38%) did not discuss the clinical relevance of treatment effects when results did not reached statistical significance. Among trials with non-statistically significant findings, 60% did not reach the planned sample size, therefore being at risk to not detect an effect that is actually there (type II error).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Only a minority of positive RCT findings was both statistically significant and clinically relevant. Scarce diligence or frank omissions of important tactic elements of RCTs, such as clinical relevance, and power, decrease the reliability of study findings to current practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31331343
doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1196-8
pii: 10.1186/s12955-019-1196-8
pmc: PMC6647152
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
127Subventions
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : L3018
Organisme : Ministero della Salute (IT)
ID : GR-2011-02348048
Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
CMAJ. 2001 Oct 30;165(9):1197-202
pubmed: 11706908
Lancet. 2006 Feb 11;367(9509):449-50
pubmed: 16473106
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Mar 1;31(5):578-82
pubmed: 16508555
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jul 15;32(16):1785-90
pubmed: 17632400
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jan 1;33(1):90-4
pubmed: 18165753
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 17;358(3):252-60
pubmed: 18199864
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 19;148(4):295-309
pubmed: 18283207
PLoS Med. 2008 Nov 25;5(11):e217; discussion e217
pubmed: 19067477
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Mar;57(3):536-46
pubmed: 19187414
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Feb;89(2):160-72
pubmed: 20090428
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Feb;92(2):306-15
pubmed: 21272730
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1283-93
pubmed: 21839614
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):301-8
pubmed: 22169081
JAMA. 2013 Feb 27;309(8):814-22
pubmed: 23443445
Respir Care. 2013 Nov;58(11):1899-906
pubmed: 23592789
Trials. 2014 Sep 17;15:362
pubmed: 25230673
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Jul;97(7):1195-201
pubmed: 26971671
Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Jun 25;1:2
pubmed: 29062491
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 May 15;16(1):91
pubmed: 29764423
N Engl J Med. 1978 Sep 28;299(13):690-4
pubmed: 355881
Biometrics. 1987 Sep;43(3):487-98
pubmed: 3663814
BMJ. 1995 Jul 1;311(6996):61
pubmed: 7677870
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):122-4
pubmed: 8015121
BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2
pubmed: 8555924
J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Nov;49(11):1221-2
pubmed: 8892487