This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chan, K. B.Y.
Right arrow Articles by Laupacis, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chan, K. B.Y.
Right arrow Articles by Laupacis, A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other journalology
Right arrow Other evidence-based medicine
CMAJ • October 30, 2001; 165 (9)
© 2001 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Research
Recherche

How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials

Karen B.Y. Chan*, Malcolm Man-Son-Hing*{dagger}, Frank J. Molnar*{dagger} and Andreas Laupacis*{ddagger}

From the *Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ont.; the {dagger}University of Ottawa Institute on Health of the Elderly, Sisters of Charity Health Services, Ottawa, Ont.; and the {ddagger}Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.

Correspondence to: Dr. M. Man-Son-Hing, Geriatric Assessment Unit, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa ON K1Y 4E9; fax 613 761-5334; mhing{at}ottawahospital.on.ca

Background: The interpretation of the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has traditionally emphasized statistical significance rather than clinical importance. Our aim was to assess the quality of reporting of factors related to clinical importance in a sample of published RCTs.

Methods: A random sample of 27 (of a total of 266) RCTs published in 5 major medical journals over a 1-year period were reviewed by 4 independent reviewers for factors considered important in the interpretation of the clinical importance of study results: identification of a clearly defined primary outcome, reporting of the expected difference between groups used in the calculation of sample size (the delta value) and whether it was based on the minimal clinically important difference of the intervention, the statistical significance of the results, presentation of pertinent confidence intervals, and the authors' interpretation of the clinical importance of the results.

Results: Twenty-two of 27 (81%) articles explicitly reported a single primary outcome. Of the 20 articles that included a sample size calculation, 18 (90%) reported a delta value. Two of the 18 (11%) articles explicitly stated that the delta value was chosen to reflect the minimal clinically important difference of the intervention. For the primary outcomes, confidence intervals surrounding the point estimates of the efficacy of the interventions were reported in 11 of 27 (41%) studies. The study results were interpreted from the perspective of clinical importance in 20 of 27 (74%) of the articles. Of these 20 reports, 5 (25%) provided justification for their clinical interpretation of the results.

Interpretation: Authors of RCTs published in major general medical and internal medicine journals do not consistently provide their own interpretation of the clinical importance of their results, and they often do not provide sufficient information to allow readers to make their own interpretation.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
M. L. de Lemos
Communicating With Patients About Chemotherapy Costs
J. Clin. Oncol., May 20, 2007; 25(15): 2142 - 2142.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
S. Eldridge
Good practice in statistical reporting for Family Practice
Fam. Pract., April 1, 2007; 24(2): 93 - 94.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Oncol Pharm PractHome page
M. L de Lemos
Defining the clinical improvement in cancer drug therapy: implications for priority setting in healthcare
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, June 1, 2006; 12(2): 91 - 94.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
H. O. Stolberg, G. Norman, and I. Trop
Randomized Controlled Trials
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2004; 183(6): 1539 - 1544.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CMAJHome page
M. Preyde and F. Ardal
Effectiveness of a parent "buddy" program for mothers of very preterm infants in a neonatal intensive care unit
Can. Med. Assoc. J., April 15, 2003; 168(8): 969 - 973.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 QJMHome page
J.G. Ray
Judging the judges: the role of journal editors
QJM, December 1, 2002; 95(12): 769 - 774.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CMAJHome page
B. J. Harvey
Reporting the clinical importance of randomized controlled trials
Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 1, 2002; 166(6): 712 - 712.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CMAJHome page
D. Moher, D. G. Altman, and K. F. Schulz
Reporting the clinical importance of randomized controlled trials
Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 1, 2002; 166(6): 711 - 712.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CMAJHome page
M. Man-Son-Hing, K. B.Y. Chan, F. J. Molnar, and A. Laupacis
Reporting the clinical importance of randomized controlled trials
Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 1, 2002; 166(6): 712 - 712.
[Full Text] [PDF]