Weissman, Joel S.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). Background: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. Methods: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the “Methods.” Results: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = −0.30, P = 0.038). Conclusions: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Background: End-of-life (EOL) care intensity is known to vary by secular and geographic patterns. US physicians receive less aggressive EOL care than the general population, presumably the result of preferences shaped by work-place experience with EOL care. Objective: We investigated occupation as a source of variation in EOL care intensity. Methods: Across 4 states, we identified 660 599, nonhealth maintenance organization Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years who died between 2004 and 2011. Linking death certificates, we identified beneficiaries with prespecified occupations: nurses, farmers, clergy, mortuary workers, homemakers, first-responders, veterinary workers, teachers, accountants, and the general population. End-of-life care intensity over the last 6 months of life was assessed using 5 validated measures: (1) Medicare expenditures, rates of (2) hospice, (3) surgery, (4) intensive care, and (5) in-hospital death. Results: Occupation was a source of large variation in EOL care intensity across all measures, before and after adjustment for sex, education, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, race/ethnicity, and hospital referral region. For example, absolute and relative adjusted differences in expenditures were US$9991 and 42% of population mean expenditure ( P < .001 for both). Compared to the general population on the 5 EOL care intensity measures, teachers (5 of 5), homemakers (4 of 5), farmers (4 of 5), and clergy (3 of 5) demonstrated significantly less aggressive care. Mortuary workers had lower EOL care intensity (4 of 5) but small numbers limited statistical significance. Conclusion: Occupations with likely exposure to child development, death/bereavement, and naturalistic influences demonstrated lower EOL care intensity. These findings may inform patients and clinicians navigating choices around individual EOL care preferences.