To the Editor Health care researchers have the difficulty of balancing statistical and clinical significance when publishing research findings. Throughout the JAMA Surgery Practical Guide to Surgical Data Sets series,1 many articles conveyed the concern that large data set analyses can produce statistically but not clinically significant results. This possibility requires the researcher and reader to make a judgement on the value of the information discovered in the study. However, it seems that authors more frequently take a clinician or cost perspective rather than consider the patient experience.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Webster KLW, Owodunni OP, Haut ER. Addressing Clinical Significance. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(2):188–189. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4748
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: