Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2026

Murine Drinking Models in the Development of Pharmacotherapies for Alcoholism: Drinking in the Dark and Two-bottle Choice
Published on: January 7, 2019
Applying clinical significance methodology to alcoholism treatment trials: determining recovery outcome status with
Ron A Cisler1, Rhonda K Kowalchuk, Stephen M Saunders
1Department of Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA. rac@uwm.edu
Background:
The current analysis applies clinical significance methodology to alcoholism treatment outcome research using data available from Project MATCH. Because of its high internal validity and its inclusion of multiple measures assessing multiple outcome dimensions, MATCH was considered an ideal study to explore the utility of this methodology.
Methods:
Data reported here are from a total of 1,726 participants enrolled in either aftercare (n = 774) or outpatient (n = 952) arms of the study. First, a cutoff score was determined differentiating functional versus dysfunctional status on three outcome measures: percent days abstinent (PDA), mean drinks per drinking day (DDD) and negative consequences of alcohol use. Second, the reliable change in pre- to post-treatment scores on these three measures was calculated.
Results:
The results reported herein support the importance of distinguishing between statistical and clinical significance of outcomes. During three months post-treatment, approximately one-half of the treated patients were "recovered" (i.e., both functional and reliably changed) with respect to both PDA (i.e., 51%) and negative consequences of drinking (i.e., 47%); however, only about one-third of individuals remained recovered throughout the full one-year follow-up period (i.e., 33% on PDA and 35% on negative consequences). These individual-based change outcomes compared similarly to a population-based indicator of heavy drinking. Alternatively, only about one-quarter of participants were recovered using two distinct criteria for mean DDD (i.e., 23-29%), and even fewer participants remained recovered on mean DDD over the full one-year follow-up period (i.e., about 14-18%).
Conclusions:
Based on study limitations, more work is required to make clinical significance methodology practically useful to alcoholism treatment trials including more precise definitions of functional status and relative change as well as better interpretation of the inter-relationship between multiple measures assessing multiple outcome domains.
More Related Videos
08:53Integrating Computerized Linguistic and Social Network Analyses to Capture Addiction Recovery Capital in an Online Community
Published on: May 31, 2019
05:40The Motivation for Alcohol Reward: Predictors of Progressive-Ratio Intravenous Alcohol Self-Administration in Humans
Published on: April 28, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Regression Toward the Mean
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: Affecting Factors