PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15929502

'But is the difference clinically significant?'.

Abstract

The statement that a difference or change found in a research study is statistically significant is frequently met with the response, 'but is it clinically significant?'. This question seems entirely reasonable and uncontentious until one asks how to determine or define clinical significance. Significance must always have an object; significant to whom? Furthermore it needs elaboration; significant in what way? Once these questions are raised, it becomes apparent that the slick, apparently sensible question is in fact extremely difficult to answer and may have multiple answers: the patient may value being free of discomfort, but the payer may only value achieving less cost in long-term care and the clinician may wish to see change in activities. The use of this question by funding organizations may disadvantage rehabilitation. This Editorial explores the substance of this question, concluding that the question can only be answered by the individual patient concerned, and that research studies should perhaps explore more fully what is actually of significance to patients.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Derick Wade. 2005. 'But is the difference clinically significant?'.. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215505cr884ed

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Iron regulation.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Chronic Disease↗

The long-term effect of multidisciplinary back training: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine the long-term effect of multidisciplinary back training on the work participation of patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Chronic low back pain is influenced by multiple factors. Multidisciplinary back training represents one of the options to take this multiplicity into account. So far, only evidence of the short-term effectiveness of this approach in terms of work participation is available. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched and the references of various articles were screened for relevant publications. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies were evaluated for their methodologic quality. RESULTS: Five of the studies had a low methodologic quality. All high-quality studies found a positive effect on at least one of the 4 outcome measures used. Based on our criteria, effectiveness was found for the outcome measures of work participation and quality of life. No effectiveness was found for experienced pain and functional status. The intensity of the intervention seems to have no substantial influence on the effectiveness of the intervention. CONCLUSION: In the long-term, multidisciplinary back training has a positive effect on work participation in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain.

Chronic Disease↗