Cited by 48Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEconomic and Environmental ValuationHerbal Medicine Research Studies

Sufficiently important difference for common cold: severity reduction

Open access
Barrett, B., Harahan, B., Brown, D., Zhang, Z., Brown, R.·2007·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to estimate the sufficiently important difference (SID) for the common cold. The SID is the smallest benefit that an intervention would require to justify costs and risks. METHODS: Benefit-harm tradeoff interviews (in-person and telephone) assessed SID in terms of overall severity reduction using evidence-based simple-language scenarios for 4 common cold treatments: vitamin C, the herbal medicine echinacea, zinc lozenges, and the unlicensed antiviral pleconaril. RESULTS: Response patterns to the 4 scenarios in the telephone and in-person samples were not statistically distinguishable and were merged for most analyses. The scenario based on vitamin C led to a mean SID of 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.27). For the echinacea-based scenario, mean SID was 32% (95% CI, 0.30-0.34). For the zinc-based scenario, mean SID was 47% (95% CI, 0.43-0.51). The scenario based on preliminary antiviral trials provided a mean SID of 57% (95% CI, 0.53-0.61). Multivariate analyses suggested that (1) between-scenario differences were substantive and reproducible in the 2 samples, (2) presence or severity of illness did not predict SID, and (3) SID was not influenced by age, sex, tobacco use, ethnicity, income, or education. Despite consistencies supporting the model and methods, response patterns were diverse, with wide spreads of individual SID values within and among treatment scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on treatment specifics, people want an on-average 25% to 57% reduction in overall illness severity to justify costs and risks of popular cold treatments. Randomized trial evidence does not support benefits this large. This model and these methods should be further developed for use in other disease entities.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1370/afm.698

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Barret 2007, a sufficiently important difference was about 25% for a cheap treatment without adverse effects.

    “In a study on severity reduction in the common cold, Barret 2007 found that a sufficiently important difference meaning “the smallest amount of patient‐valued benefit that an intervention would require in order to justify associated costs, risk and other harms” was about 25% for a cheap treatment without adverse effects.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R. Suffi ciently important dif- ference: expanding the framework of clinical signifi cance. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(3):250-261.
  2. Barrett B, Brown R, Mundt M, et al. Using benefi t harm tradeoffs to estimate suffi ciently important difference: the case of the com- mon cold. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(1):47-55.
  3. Barrett B, Muller D, Rakel D, Rabago D, Marchand L, Scheder J. Pla- cebo, meaning and health. Perspect Biol Med. 2006;49(2):178-198.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barrett, B., Harahan, B., Brown, D., Zhang, Z., & Brown, R.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin System (US)
Corresponding author
  • Barrett, B.
  • Harahan, B.
  • Brown, R.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2007-05-01
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
216-223
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2171297145
Cited by
48
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
10.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM008692)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Herbal Medicine Research Studies
Keywords
common cold, disease severity, vitamin C, Echinacea, zinc lozenges, pleconaril, patient preferences, cost-effectiveness threshold
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Antiviral Agents, Ascorbic Acid, Common Cold, Female, Humans, Male, Phytotherapy, Middle Aged, Oxadiazoles, Oxazoles, Plant Extracts, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Vitamins, Treatment Outcome, Zinc Compounds, Risk Assessment, Echinacea

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