Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 10, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Disparity between statistical significance and clinical importance in published randomised controlled trials: a
Tonya Marianne Esterhuizen1, Lawrence Mbuagbaw2,3,4,5, Nadia Rehman3
1Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa tonyae@sun.ac.za.
Objectives:
We estimated the extent of the disparity between statistical significance and clinical importance in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and explored factors associated with this disparity.
Design:
A methodological study of trials published between 2018 and 2022 and indexed in PubMed was conducted. Primary reports of two-arm, phase three, superiority trials of human health interventions were included. Pharmacokinetic studies and pilot trials were excluded. The relationship between the specified delta value or minimum clinically important difference (as specified in the sample size calculation) and the effect size determined the clinical importance of the trial results. Studies where the clinical importance was at least possible, with no statistical significance, were classified as SS-CI+ disparity, and studies which were definitely not clinically important but statistically significant were classified as SS+CI- disparity. Factors associated with each type of disparity were explored at the study level using multinomial logistic regression.
Results:
500 trials were included. In 38.4% (n=192) of these, information was not available to classify clinical importance. Overall disparity was found in 63 of the remaining 308 studies, 20.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16.2% to 25.5%). SS+CI- disparity was 10.3% (15/145) (95% CI 6.1% to 16.8%) and SS-CI+ disparity was 29.5% (48/163) (95% CI 22.7% to 37.2%).Studies testing complementary or alternative medicines relative to drug trials were positively associated with SS+CI- disparity. Low journal impact factor, small sample size, unfunded or grant funding and failure to mention allocation concealment were positively associated with SS-CI+disparity.
Conclusions:
In up to 20% of RCTs, there may be a disparity between statistical significance and clinical importance. Clinical importance of results should be taken into account in the interpretation of trial results, and trials should adhere stringently to reporting guidelines.
More Related Videos
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
06:13Author Spotlight: Exploring the Impact of Reduced Resistance Exercise Volume on Metabolic Health
Published on: December 1, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Significance
Significance Testing: Overview
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,...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Regression Toward the Mean