| Title |
Determination of the Clinical Importance of Study Results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.11111.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Malcolm Man‐Son‐Hing, Andreas Laupacis, Keith O'Rourke, Frank J. Molnar, Jeffery Mahon, Karen B. Y. Chan, George Wells |
| Abstract |
Formal statistical methods for analyzing clinical trial data are widely accepted by the medical community. Unfortunately, the interpretation and reporting of trial results from the perspective of clinical importance has not received similar emphasis. This imbalance promotes the historical tendency to consider clinical trial results that are statistically significant as also clinically important, and conversely, those with statistically insignificant results as being clinically unimportant. In this paper, we review the present state of knowledge in the determination of the clinical importance of study results. This work also provides a simple, systematic method for determining the clinical importance of study results. It uses the relationship between the point estimate of the treatment effect (with its associated confidence interval) and the estimate of the smallest treatment effect that would lead to a change in a patient's management. The possible benefits of this approach include enabling clinicians to more easily interpret the results of clinical trials from a clinical perspective, and promoting a more rational approach to the design of prospective clinical trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Lithuania | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| South Africa | 1 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 158 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 17% |
| Researcher | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 45 | 28% |
| Unknown | 15 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 10% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 31 | 19% |
| Unknown | 25 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,551,449
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,865
of 8,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,717
of 47,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 47,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.