The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 1: Clinical Versus Statistical Significance
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used in today's rapidly evolving health care environment. The value of care provision emphasizes the highest quality of care at the lowest cost. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, with different stakeholders prioritizing different components of the value equation. At the center of the discussion are the patients and their quantification of outcome via PROs. There are hundreds of different PRO questionnaires that may ascertain an individual's overall general health, quality of life, activity level, or determine a body part-, joint-, or disease-specific outcome. As providers and patients increasingly measure outcomes, there exists greater potential to identify significant differences across time points due to an intervention. In other words, if you compare groups enough, you are bound to eventually detect a significant difference. However, the characterization of significance is not purely dichotomous, as a statistically significant outcome may not be clinically relevant. Statistical significance is the direct result of a mathematical equation, irrelevant to the patient experience. In clinical research, despite detecting statistically significant pre- and post-treatment differences, patients may or may not be able to perceive those differences. Thresholds exist to delineate whether those differences are clinically important or relevant to patients. PROs are unique, with distinct parameters of clinical importance for each outcome score. This review highlights the most common PROs in clinical research and discusses the salient pearls and pitfalls. In particular, it stresses the difference between statistical and clinical relevance and the concepts of minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state. Researchers and clinicians should consider clinical importance in addition to statistical significance when interpreting and reporting investigation results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Franchignoni, F., Vercelli, S., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Bravini, E., & Ferriero, G. (2014) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4893 · Cited by 924
Scoring Systems for the Functional Assessment of the Shoulder
Kirkley, A., Griffin, S., & Dainty, K. (2003) · Arthroscopy · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.10.030 · Cited by 504
Cited by
Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair
Cvetanovich, G. L., Gowd, A. K., Liu, J. N., Nwachukwu, B. U., Cabarcas, B. C., Cole, B. J., Forsythe, B., Romeo, A. A., & Verma, N. N. (2019) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.013 · Cited by 294
Xiao, M., van Niekerk, M., Trivedi, N. N., Hwang, C. E., Sherman, S. L., Safran, M. R., & Abrams, G. D. (2023) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/03635465221102420 · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Harris, J. D., Brand, J. C., Cote, M. P., Faucett, S. C., & Dhawan, A.
- Venue
- Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1102-1112
- ISSN
- 0749-8063 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2607983323
- Cited by
- 498
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 32.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 1: Clinical Versus Statistical Significance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.053
- The paper
- Harris, J. D., Brand, J. C., Cote, M. P., Faucett, S. C., & Dhawan, A. (2017). Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 1: Clinical Versus Statistical Significance. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.053
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.