2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2019.02.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Commentary: Statistical significance and clinical significance - A call to consider patient reported outcome measures, effect size, confidence interval and minimal clinically important difference (MCID)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
22
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
22
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Many of the participants improved in multiple outcome measures as measured by improvement above an MCID value. MCID is interpreted as an improvement that is relevant to individual participants [65] and is proposed as the "smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troublesome side effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient's management" [66]. The use of a half standard deviation as a simple measure of MCID as proposed by Norman et al [37] is not universally accepted [67] and its use in our study with its small number of participants has resulted in a standard deviation that is higher than would be expected with a larger cohort, leading to imprecision in detecting an MCID change, with an MCID change more difficult to achieve, and an underestimate of the numbers of participants that show a substantial improvement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many of the participants improved in multiple outcome measures as measured by improvement above an MCID value. MCID is interpreted as an improvement that is relevant to individual participants [65] and is proposed as the "smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troublesome side effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient's management" [66]. The use of a half standard deviation as a simple measure of MCID as proposed by Norman et al [37] is not universally accepted [67] and its use in our study with its small number of participants has resulted in a standard deviation that is higher than would be expected with a larger cohort, leading to imprecision in detecting an MCID change, with an MCID change more difficult to achieve, and an underestimate of the numbers of participants that show a substantial improvement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We started with a fully saturated model that included nativity, gestational groups, covariates, confounders, and interaction terms, allowing for the exploration of the simultaneous joint effects of nativitycovariate and covariate-covariate on PTB and early term birth, beyond the explanatory paradigm of the sum of the individual effect of nativity or maternal and obstetric characteristics; and 4) Action: We use knowledge generated from our study to disrupt the reliance of clinical outcomes as defined in administrative databases as the predominant approach to examining the causes of PTB inequities. Instead, we propose the use of a patient reported outcome or experience measure of PTB among Black women with GDM in clinical settings, particularly when clinical significance outweighs statistical significance [44].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many of the participants improved in multiple outcome measures as measured by improvement above an MCID value. MCID is interpreted as an improvement that is relevant to individual participants (65) and is proposed as the "smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troublesome side effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient's management" (66). The use of a half standard deviation as a simple measure of MCID as proposed by Norman et al ( 37) is not universally accepted (67) and its use in our study with its small number of participants has resulted in a standard deviation that is higher than would be expected with a larger cohort, leading to imprecision in detecting an MCID change, with an MCID change more difficult to achieve, and an underestimate of the numbers of participants that show a substantial improvement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%