Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Mar;103(3):685-93. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.120378. Epub 2016 Feb 10.

Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Author information

1
RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC; lmcleod@rti.org.
2
Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT; and.
3
University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.

Abstract

This article reviews methods used to facilitate the interpretation and evaluation of group-level differences in clinical outcome assessments. These methods complement and supplement tests of statistical significance. Examples, including studies in nutrition, are used to illustrate the application of the interpretation methods for group-level comparisons from experimental or observational studies. In addition, specific pitfalls of evaluating change in meta-analysis studies are described. A set of recommendations is provided. This review is intended as an introduction for the novice and as a refresher for the experienced researcher.

KEYWORDS:

clinical outcome assessment; effect size; interpretation; minimally important difference; patient-reported outcome

PMID:
26864358
PMCID:
PMC4763495
[Available on 2017-03-01]
DOI:
10.3945/ajcn.115.120378
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center