Shgufta Docter1, Zina Fathalla2, Michael J Lukacs1, Michaela C M Khan1, Morgan Jennings1, Shu-Hsuan Liu2, Susan Dong2, Alan Getgood1, Dianne M Bryant1,2. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences (S.D., M.J.L., M.C.M.K., M.J., and D.M.B.), Fowler Kennedy Sports Medicine Clinic, Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery (A.G. and D.M.B.), and Bone and Joint Institute (S.D., M.J.L, M.C.M.K., M.J., A.G., and D.M.B.), Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement recommends that studies report results beyond p values and include treatment effect(s) and measures of precision (e.g., confidence intervals [CIs]) to facilitate the interpretation of results. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the reporting and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) results in clinical studies from high-impact orthopaedic journals, to determine the proportion of studies that (1) only reported a p value; (2) reported a treatment effect, CI, or minimal clinically important difference (MCID); and (3) offered an interpretation of the results beyond interpreting a p value. METHODS: We included studies from 5 high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals published in 2017 and 2019 that compared at least 2 intervention groups using PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 228 studies were analyzed, including 126 randomized controlled trials, 35 prospective cohort studies, 61 retrospective cohort studies, 1 mixed cohort study, and 5 case-control studies. Seventy-six percent of studies (174) reported p values exclusively to express and interpret between-group differences, and only 22.4% (51) reported a treatment effect (mean difference, mean change, or odds ratio) with 95% CI. Of the 54 studies reporting a treatment effect, 31 interpreted the results using an important threshold (MCID, margin, or Cohen d), but only 3 interpreted the CIs. We found an absolute improvement of 35.5% (95% CI, 20.8% to 48.4%) in the reporting of the MCID between 2017 and 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of interventional studies reporting PROMs do not report CIs around between-group differences in outcome and do not define a clinically meaningful difference. A p value cannot effectively communicate the readiness for implementation in a clinical setting and may be misleading. Thus, reporting requirements should be expanded to require authors to define and provide a rationale for between-group clinically important difference thresholds, and study findings should be communicated by comparing CIs with these thresholds.
BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement recommends that studies report results beyond p values and include treatment effect(s) and measures of precision (e.g., confidence intervals [CIs]) to facilitate the interpretation of results. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the reporting and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) results in clinical studies from high-impact orthopaedic journals, to determine the proportion of studies that (1) only reported a p value; (2) reported a treatment effect, CI, or minimal clinically important difference (MCID); and (3) offered an interpretation of the results beyond interpreting a p value. METHODS: We included studies from 5 high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals published in 2017 and 2019 that compared at least 2 intervention groups using PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 228 studies were analyzed, including 126 randomized controlled trials, 35 prospective cohort studies, 61 retrospective cohort studies, 1 mixed cohort study, and 5 case-control studies. Seventy-six percent of studies (174) reported p values exclusively to express and interpret between-group differences, and only 22.4% (51) reported a treatment effect (mean difference, mean change, or odds ratio) with 95% CI. Of the 54 studies reporting a treatment effect, 31 interpreted the results using an important threshold (MCID, margin, or Cohen d), but only 3 interpreted the CIs. We found an absolute improvement of 35.5% (95% CI, 20.8% to 48.4%) in the reporting of the MCID between 2017 and 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of interventional studies reporting PROMs do not report CIs around between-group differences in outcome and do not define a clinically meaningful difference. A p value cannot effectively communicate the readiness for implementation in a clinical setting and may be misleading. Thus, reporting requirements should be expanded to require authors to define and provide a rationale for between-group clinically important difference thresholds, and study findings should be communicated by comparing CIs with these thresholds.
Authors: Meg E Morris; Natasha Brusco; Jeffrey Woods; Paul S Myles; Anita Hodge; Cathy Jones; Damien Lloyd; Vincent Rovtar; Amanda Clifford; Victoria Atkinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 2.692