Comments on "Assessment of pain and quality of life in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a cohort study".

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
André Pontes-Silva, André Luiz Lopes, Erika da Silva Maciel, Fernando Rodrigues Peixoto Quaresma, Aldair Darlan Santos-de-Araújo
{"title":"Comments on \"Assessment of pain and quality of life in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a cohort study\".","authors":"André Pontes-Silva, André Luiz Lopes, Erika da Silva Maciel, Fernando Rodrigues Peixoto Quaresma, Aldair Darlan Santos-de-Araújo","doi":"10.1590/1806-9282.20230304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"First, Viana et al. 1 evaluated postoperative pain and quality of life in patients undergoing median sternotomy (via comparisons in a cohort study). However, while comparing outcomes, it is important to present the clinical relevance of the differences found because the p-value shows only a statistical observation related to an alpha error probability 2,3 . Classical statistical significance is still the predominant way to analyze cohort studies, but clinical significance analysis has been slowly incorporated into the analysis of health-related studies. Statistical significance does not assure that the results are clinically relevant. The dichotomy that emerged from hypothesis testing 4 , namely, the decision to accept or reject the null hypothesis based on the predetermined levels of probability 5 does not provide any insights into whether the results of the study are important for patients, clinicians, or decision-makers, limiting the value of the tests in the world of evidence-based practice 4,6,7 . It can be solved by adding the effect size to the significant values (p ≤ 0.05) 8 or the minimal clinically important difference 9 of the instruments: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 10 , Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 11 , and World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL) 12 . These adjustments facilitate probabilistic reasoning in the clinical applicability of scientific evidence. Second, the authors used convenience sampling and suggested further studies with larger samples. A convenience sample is one that is drawn from a source that is easily accessible to study. This sample","PeriodicalId":21234,"journal":{"name":"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/09/fe/1806-9282-ramb-69-07-e20230304.PMC10352007.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230304","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

First, Viana et al. 1 evaluated postoperative pain and quality of life in patients undergoing median sternotomy (via comparisons in a cohort study). However, while comparing outcomes, it is important to present the clinical relevance of the differences found because the p-value shows only a statistical observation related to an alpha error probability 2,3 . Classical statistical significance is still the predominant way to analyze cohort studies, but clinical significance analysis has been slowly incorporated into the analysis of health-related studies. Statistical significance does not assure that the results are clinically relevant. The dichotomy that emerged from hypothesis testing 4 , namely, the decision to accept or reject the null hypothesis based on the predetermined levels of probability 5 does not provide any insights into whether the results of the study are important for patients, clinicians, or decision-makers, limiting the value of the tests in the world of evidence-based practice 4,6,7 . It can be solved by adding the effect size to the significant values (p ≤ 0.05) 8 or the minimal clinically important difference 9 of the instruments: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 10 , Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 11 , and World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL) 12 . These adjustments facilitate probabilistic reasoning in the clinical applicability of scientific evidence. Second, the authors used convenience sampling and suggested further studies with larger samples. A convenience sample is one that is drawn from a source that is easily accessible to study. This sample
对“心脏手术患者疼痛和生活质量评估:一项队列研究”的评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
276
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: A Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (RAMB), editada pela Associação Médica Brasileira, desde 1954, tem por objetivo publicar artigos que contribuam para o conhecimento médico.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信