title: Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.
abstract: This article reviews methods used to facilitate the interpretation and evaluation of group-level differences in clinical outcome assessments. These methods complement and supplement tests of statistical significance. Examples, including studies in nutrition, are used to illustrate the application of the interpretation methods for group-level comparisons from experimental or observational studies. In addition, specific pitfalls of evaluating change in meta-analysis studies are described. A set of recommendations is provided. This review is intended as an introduction for the novice and as a refresher for the experienced researcher.
authors: RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC; lmcleod@rti.org.
authors: Lori D
authors: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7837-8033
authors: LD
authors: McLeod
authors: Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT; and.
authors: Joseph C
authors: JC
authors: Cappelleri
authors: University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
authors: Ron D
authors: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6697-907X
authors: RD
authors: Hays
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D012107:Research Design
keywords: clinical outcome assessment; effect size; interpretation; minimally important difference; patient-reported outcome