Chang, David C.

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.

OBJECTIVEThe subspecialization of neurosurgical practice is an ongoing trend in modern neurosurgery. However, it remains unclear whether the degree of surgeon specialization is associated with improved patient outcomes. The authors hypothesized that a trend toward increased neurosurgeon specialization was associated with improved patient morbidity and mortality rates.METHODSThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used (1998–2009). Patients were included in a spinal analysis cohort for instrumented spine surgery involving the cervical spine (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes 81.31–81.33, 81.01–81.03, 84.61–84.62, and 84.66) or lumbar spine (codes 81.04–81.08, 81.34–81.38, 84.64–84.65, and 84.68). A cranial analysis cohort consisted of patients receiving a parenchymal excision or lobectomy operation (codes 01.53 and 01.59). Surgeon specialization was measured using unique surgeon identifiers in the NIS and defined as the proportion of a surgeon’s total practice dedicated to cranial or spinal cases.RESULTSA total of 46,029 and 231,875 patients were identified in the cranial and spinal analysis cohorts, respectively. On multivariate analysis in the cranial analysis cohort (after controlling for overall surgeon volume, patient demographic data/comorbidities, hospital characteristics, and admitting source), each percentage-point increase in a surgeon’s cranial specialization (that is, the proportion of cranial cases) was associated with a 0.0060 reduction in the log odds of patient mortality (95% CI 0.0034–0.0086) and a 0.0042 reduction in the log odds of morbidity (95% CI 0.0032–0.0052). This resulted in a 15% difference in the predicted probability of mortality for neurosurgeons at the 75th versus the 25th percentile of cranial specialization. In the spinal analysis cohort, each percentage-point increase in a surgeon’s spinal specialization was associated with a 0.0122 reduction in the log odds of mortality (95% CI 0.0074–0.0170) and a 0.0058 reduction in the log odds of morbidity (95% CI 0.0049–0.0067). This resulted in a 26.8% difference in the predicted probability of mortality for neurosurgeons at the 75th versus the 25th percentile of spinal specialization.CONCLUSIONSFor both spinal and cranial surgery patient cohorts derived from the NIS database, increased surgeon specialization was significantly and independently associated with improved mortality and morbidity rates, even after controlling for overall case volume.