Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant
Abstract Background An observed statistically significant difference between two interventions does not necessarily imply that this difference is clinically important for patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess if treatment effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for low back pain (LBP) a...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2019-07-01
|
Series: | Health and Quality of Life Outcomes |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12955-019-1196-8 |
id |
doaj-f8afed7fdb1840a88ce9bca3c6320205 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-f8afed7fdb1840a88ce9bca3c63202052020-11-25T02:54:41ZengBMCHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes1477-75252019-07-011711810.1186/s12955-019-1196-8Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevantSilvia Gianola0Greta Castellini1Davide Corbetta2Lorenzo Moja3IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Unit of Clinical EpidemiologyIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Unit of Clinical EpidemiologyIRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Rehabilitation and Functional Recovery DepartmentIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Unit of Clinical EpidemiologyAbstract Background An observed statistically significant difference between two interventions does not necessarily imply that this difference is clinically important for patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess if treatment effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for low back pain (LBP) are statistically significant and clinically relevant, and if RCTs were powered to achieve clinically relevant differences on continuous outcomes. Methods We searched for all RCTs included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews focusing on the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions for LBP and published until April 2017. RCTs having sample size calculation and a planned minimal important difference were considered. In the primary analysis, we calculated the proportion of RCTs classified as “statistically significant and clinically relevant”, “statistically significant but not clinically relevant”, “not statistically significant but clinically relevant”, and “not statistically significant and not clinically relevant”. Then, we investigated how many times the mismatch between statistical significance and clinical relevance was due to inadequate power. Results From 20 eligible SRs including 101 RCTs, we identified 42 RCTs encompassing 81 intervention comparisons. Overall, 60% (25 RCTs) were statistically significant while only 36% (15 RCTs) were both statistically and clinically significant. Most trials (38%) did not discuss the clinical relevance of treatment effects when results did not reached statistical significance. Among trials with non-statistically significant findings, 60% did not reach the planned sample size, therefore being at risk to not detect an effect that is actually there (type II error). Conclusion Only a minority of positive RCT findings was both statistically significant and clinically relevant. Scarce diligence or frank omissions of important tactic elements of RCTs, such as clinical relevance, and power, decrease the reliability of study findings to current practice.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12955-019-1196-8Epidemiologic methodsTrialsRandomized clinical minimal clinically important differencePatient outcome assessmentData interpretationStatistical |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Silvia Gianola Greta Castellini Davide Corbetta Lorenzo Moja |
spellingShingle |
Silvia Gianola Greta Castellini Davide Corbetta Lorenzo Moja Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Epidemiologic methods Trials Randomized clinical minimal clinically important difference Patient outcome assessment Data interpretation Statistical |
author_facet |
Silvia Gianola Greta Castellini Davide Corbetta Lorenzo Moja |
author_sort |
Silvia Gianola |
title |
Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant |
title_short |
Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant |
title_full |
Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant |
title_fullStr |
Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant |
title_full_unstemmed |
Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant |
title_sort |
rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes |
issn |
1477-7525 |
publishDate |
2019-07-01 |
description |
Abstract Background An observed statistically significant difference between two interventions does not necessarily imply that this difference is clinically important for patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess if treatment effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for low back pain (LBP) are statistically significant and clinically relevant, and if RCTs were powered to achieve clinically relevant differences on continuous outcomes. Methods We searched for all RCTs included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews focusing on the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions for LBP and published until April 2017. RCTs having sample size calculation and a planned minimal important difference were considered. In the primary analysis, we calculated the proportion of RCTs classified as “statistically significant and clinically relevant”, “statistically significant but not clinically relevant”, “not statistically significant but clinically relevant”, and “not statistically significant and not clinically relevant”. Then, we investigated how many times the mismatch between statistical significance and clinical relevance was due to inadequate power. Results From 20 eligible SRs including 101 RCTs, we identified 42 RCTs encompassing 81 intervention comparisons. Overall, 60% (25 RCTs) were statistically significant while only 36% (15 RCTs) were both statistically and clinically significant. Most trials (38%) did not discuss the clinical relevance of treatment effects when results did not reached statistical significance. Among trials with non-statistically significant findings, 60% did not reach the planned sample size, therefore being at risk to not detect an effect that is actually there (type II error). Conclusion Only a minority of positive RCT findings was both statistically significant and clinically relevant. Scarce diligence or frank omissions of important tactic elements of RCTs, such as clinical relevance, and power, decrease the reliability of study findings to current practice. |
topic |
Epidemiologic methods Trials Randomized clinical minimal clinically important difference Patient outcome assessment Data interpretation Statistical |
url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12955-019-1196-8 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT silviagianola rehabilitationinterventionsinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsforlowbackpainproofofstatisticalsignificanceoftenisnotrelevant AT gretacastellini rehabilitationinterventionsinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsforlowbackpainproofofstatisticalsignificanceoftenisnotrelevant AT davidecorbetta rehabilitationinterventionsinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsforlowbackpainproofofstatisticalsignificanceoftenisnotrelevant AT lorenzomoja rehabilitationinterventionsinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsforlowbackpainproofofstatisticalsignificanceoftenisnotrelevant |
_version_ |
1724719587499442176 |