Distinguishing Clinical from Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research.


Journal

Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Feb 2024
Historique:
medline: 23 2 2024
pubmed: 23 2 2024
entrez: 23 2 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase healthcare costs and treatment toxicity. CER studies from 2022 issues of Annals of Surgery, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Surgical Research, and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by two different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the Methods. Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size (r=-0.30, P=0.038). In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical-decision making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Sections du résumé

OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER).
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase healthcare costs and treatment toxicity.
METHODS METHODS
CER studies from 2022 issues of Annals of Surgery, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Surgical Research, and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by two different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the Methods.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size (r=-0.30, P=0.038).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical-decision making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38390761
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006250
pii: 00000658-990000000-00793
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: None

Auteurs

Ajami Gikandi (A)

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Julie Hallet (J)

Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Bas Groot Koerkamp (BG)

Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Clancy J Clark (CJ)

Department of Surgical Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.

Keith D Lillemoe (KD)

Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Raja R Narayan (RR)

Department of Surgical Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital / Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.

Harvey J Mamon (HJ)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital / Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.

Marco A Zenati (MA)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Nabil Wasif (N)

Department of Surgical Oncology and Endocrine Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ.

Dana Gelb Safran (DG)

National Quality Forum, Washington, DC Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.

Marc G Besselink (MG)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

David C Chang (DC)

Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Lara N Traeger (LN)

Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.

Joel S Weissman (JS)

Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Zhi Ven Fong (ZV)

Department of Surgical Oncology and Endocrine Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ.

Classifications MeSH