[The clinical relevance of effect sizes]

Area of Science:

• Health Services Research
• Clinical Decision Making
• Medical Economics

Context:

• Assessing the clinical relevance of differences between therapeutic alternatives is a critical issue in healthcare.
• Current formal solutions for evaluating relevance are scarce and lack practical applicability.
• The ongoing debate highlights the need for a robust framework to guide these assessments.

Purpose:

• To present the current state of the debate surrounding clinical relevance in therapeutic comparisons.
• To propose that the judgment of clinical relevance is fundamentally a value-based, multi-dimensional decision.
• To explore the criteria influencing the perception of clinically relevant therapeutic differences.

Summary:

• The importance of judging clinical relevance in therapeutic alternatives is emphasized.
• The limitations of existing formal methods for assessing relevance are discussed.
• The core argument posits that relevance is determined by a multi-dimensional, value-laden decision-making process.

Impact:

• Provides a conceptual framework for understanding and evaluating clinical relevance in therapeutic choices.
• Highlights the subjective and value-based nature of clinical relevance judgments.
• Informs future research and policy development for more effective therapeutic decision-making and resource allocation.