Advertisement

Keep “statistically” significant to differentiate it from “clinically” relevant

Published:December 16, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2022.11.022
      I read with great interest the Editor’s Note by Abe Fingerhut et al seeking to improve our medical writing and communication.
      • Fingerhut A.
      • Wexner S.
      • Behrns K.
      • et al.
      Why say “statistically significant” rather than just “significant”? A plea to rid the medical literature of linguistic ambiguity.
      I concur with their argument, but I would add a practical justification for maintaining “statistically” to qualify “significant.”
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Fingerhut A.
        • Wexner S.
        • Behrns K.
        • et al.
        Why say “statistically significant” rather than just “significant”? A plea to rid the medical literature of linguistic ambiguity.
        Surgery. 2022; 172: 1039-1040
        • Draak T.H.P.
        • de Greef B.T.A.
        • Faber C.G.
        • Merkies I.S.J.
        • PeriNomS study group
        The minimum clinically important difference: which direction to take.
        Eur J Neurol. 2019; 26: 850-855
        • Amrhein V.
        • Greenland S.
        • McShane B.
        Scientists rise up against statistical significance.
        Nature. 2019; 567: 305-307