Literature DB >> 11343760

Improving interpretation of clinical studies by use of confidence levels, clinical significance curves, and risk-benefit contours.

T P Shakespeare1, V J Gebski, M J Veness, J Simes.   

Abstract

The process of interpreting the results of clinical studies and translating them into clinical practice is being debated. Here we examine the role of p values and confidence intervals in clinical decision-making, and draw attention to confusion in their interpretation. To improve result reporting, we propose the use of confidence levels and plotting of clinical significance curves and risk-benefit contours. These curves and contours provide degrees of probability of both the potential benefit of treatment and the detriment due to toxicity. Additionally, they provide clinicians with a mechanism of translating the results of studies into treatment for individual patients, thus improving the clinical decision-making process. We illustrate the application of these curves and contours by reference to published studies. Confidence levels, clinical significance curves, and risk-benefit contours can be easily calculated with a hand calculator or standard statistical packages. We advocate their incorporation into the published results of clinical studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11343760     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04522-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  27 in total

1.  Does early surgical repair of hip fractures improve patient outcomes?

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-07-20       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  New technologies in cancer and their assessment. The clinical surgeon's point of view.

Authors:  Javier Escrig Sos; David Martínez Ramos
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  Confidence interval or p-value?: part 4 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

Authors:  Jean-Baptist du Prel; Gerhard Hommel; Bernd Röhrig; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2009-05-08       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Editorial: Threshold P Values in Orthopaedic Research-We Know the Problem. What is the Solution?

Authors:  Seth S Leopold; Raphaël Porcher
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Effect of needle size on immunogenicity and reactogenicity of vaccines in infants: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Linda Diggle; Jonathan J Deeks; Andrew J Pollard
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-08-04

6.  Experiences of violence before and during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes: an analysis of the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey.

Authors:  Marcelo L Urquia; Patricia J O'Campo; Maureen I Heaman; Patricia A Janssen; Kellie R Thiessen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Group- and individual-level coincidence of the 'Fatmax' and lactate accumulation in adolescents.

Authors:  Keith Tolfrey; Asker E Jeukendrup; Alan M Batterham
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 8.  Early versus deferred treatment for early stage multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Y He; K Wheatley; O Clark; A Glasmacher; H Ross; B Djulbegovic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2003

9.  Pilot postoperative ileus study of escin in cancer patients after colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Qiwei Xie; Xianglong Zong; Baoming Ge; Shan Wang; Jiafu Ji; Yingjiang Ye; Lili Pan
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Statistical versus clinical significance for infants with brain injury: reanalysis of outcome data from a randomized controlled study.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Nurs Res       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 2.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.