Van Dyke Thomas E
Boston University Goldman School of Dental Medicine, 100 E Newton Street, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
J Int Acad Periodontol. 2005 Oct;7(4 Suppl):191-6.
With the approval of interventions or treatments for periodontal disease based on results of large clinical trials, it is often difficult for the clinician to determine whether the statistical results obtained from these studies are clinically significant and whether these interventions or treatments will thus be effective in their individual patients. In this article, a series of measures of clinical significance are derived from the literature, and a 2-step approach is suggested for determining clinical significance. First, the reliability of the data as a function of the reliability of the measurement tool(s) is calculated, and then clinical significance is put into the context of effect size. By using these estimators, clinicians can determine, for example, whether administration of an experimental local medication plus scaling and root planing provides a clinically significant outcome, which can assist them in deciding which interventions are most effective for their patients.
随着基于大型临床试验结果的牙周病干预措施或治疗方法获得批准，临床医生常常难以确定从这些研究中获得的统计结果是否具有临床意义，以及这些干预措施或治疗方法对其个体患者是否有效。在本文中，一系列临床意义的衡量标准源自文献，并提出了一种两步法来确定临床意义。首先，根据测量工具的可靠性计算数据的可靠性，然后将临床意义置于效应大小的背景下。通过使用这些评估指标，临床医生可以确定，例如，给予实验性局部用药加龈下刮治和根面平整是否能产生具有临床意义的结果，这有助于他们决定哪种干预措施对其患者最有效。
