Effektstärken in der klinischen Forschung: Signifikanz, Relevanz, Fallzahl

In dieser Arbeit wird die Bedeutung von Effektstärken in der onkologischen Forschung betrachtet. Es wird erläutert, welche Arten von Effektstärken bei der Bewertung von Krebstherapien verwendet werden und inwieweit sie für die Durchführung und Bewertung klinischer Studien relevant sind. Hierbei wird auf die Bedeutung von Effektstärken für die Fallzahlplanung eingegangen sowie die Wichtigkeit der Bewertung der klinischen Relevanz von Studienergebnissen diskutiert. Darüber hinaus wird abschließend die Verwendung von „common language“-Effektstärken in der onkologischen Praxis erklärt und beleuchtet. Es wird erläutert, wie sie dazu beitragen können, die Kommunikation von Studienergebnissen verständlicher zu machen.

Abstract

This paper considers the importance of effect sizes in oncology research. It explains which types of effect sizes are used in the evaluation of oncological therapies and to what extent they are relevant for the conduct and evaluation of clinical trials. Furthermore, the importance of effect sizes for sample size calculation will be addressed, as well as the importance of assessing the clinical relevance of study results. In addition, the use of "common language" effect sizes in oncology practice will be explained and highlighted. It will be explained how they can help to make the communication of study results more understandable.

Schlüsselwörter

Effektstärken - klinische Relevanz - Metaanalysen - Signifikanz

Key words

Effect sizes - clinical relevance - meta-analyses - significance

Publication History

Article published online:
25 September 2023

• Literatur

• 1 Bell ML, Fiero MH, Dhillon HM. et al. Statistical controversies in cancer research: using standardized effect size graphs to enhance interpretability of cancer-related clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes. Ann Oncol 2017; 28: 1730-1733
• 2 Karadaghy OA, Hong H, Scott-Wittenborn N. et al. Reporting of effect size and confidence intervals in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery. JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery 2017; 143: 1075-1080
• 3 Aarts S, Van Den Akker M, Winkens B. The importance of effect sizes. Eur J General Practice 2014; 20: 61-64
• 4 Ellis PD. The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010
• 5 Huberty CJ. A history of effect size indices. Educational Psychol Measurement 2002; 62: 227-240
• 6 Cohen J. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 1962; 65: 145-153 DOI: 10.1037/h0045186.
• 7 Salas M, Mordin M, Castro C. et al. Health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer: a review of measures. BMC Cancer 2022; 22: 1-20
• 8 Ressing M, Blettner M, Klug SJ. Auswertung epidemiologischer Studien. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 2010; 107: 187-192
• 9 Pogrow S. How effect size (practical significance) misleads clinical practice: The case for switching to practical benefit to assess applied research findings. The American Statistician 2019; 73: 223-234
• 10 Dahlberg SE, Korn EL, Le-Rademacher J, Mandrekar SJ. Clinical versus statistical significance in studies of thoracic malignancies. J Thorac Oncol 2020; 15: 1406-1408
• 11 Enzmann D. Notes on effect size measures for the difference of means from two independent groups: The case of Cohen’s d and Hedges’g. Hamburg: Universität; 2015. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1578.2725
• 12 Borenstein M. Effect sizes for continuous data. In: Cooper H, Hedges L, Valentine J, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis. 2^nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009: 221-235
• 13 Citrome L. Quantifying clinical relevance. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience 2014; 11: 26-30 . https://innovationscns.com/quantifying-clinical-relevance/
• 14 Sloan J, Symonds T, Vargas-Chanes D, Fridley B. Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Inform J 2003; 37: 23-31
• 15 Sánchez-Iglesias I, Martín-Aguilar C. Significant differences and experimental designs do not necessarily imply clinical relevance: effect sizes and causality claims in antidepressant treatments. J Clin Med 2023; 12: 3181
• 16 Davis SL, Johnson AH, Lynch T. et al. Inclusion of effect size measures and clinical relevance in research papers. Nursing Res 2021; 70: 222-230
• 17 van Rijn MH, Bech A, Bouyer J, van den Brand JA. Statistical significance versus clinical relevance. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017; 32: ii6-ii12
• 18 Lehr R. Sixteen S-squared over D-squared: A relation for crude sample size estimates. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11: 1099-1102
• 19 Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Bennett JM, Andridge R. et al. Yoga's impact on inflammation, mood, and fatigue in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 1040-1049
• 20 McGraw KO, Wong SP. A common language effect size statistic. Psychol Bull 1992; 111: 361-365
• 21 Vogel H, Appelbaum S, Haller H, Ostermann T. The interpretation of verbal probabilities: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. In: Röhrig R, Grabe N, Hoffmann VS et al., eds. German Medical Data Sciences 2022 – Future Medicine: More Precise, More Integrative, More Sustainable!. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2022: 9-16 DOI: 10.3233/SHTI220798
• 22 Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol 2013; 4: 863
• 23 Dunlap WP. A program to compute McGraw and Wong’s common language effect size indicator. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1999; 31: 706-709
• 24 Magnusson K. Interpreting Cohen's d Effect Size - An Interactive Visualization. Retrieved from: https://rpsychologist.com/cohend/
• 25 Brooks ME, Dalal DK, Nolan KP. Are common language effect sizes easier to understand than traditional effect sizes?. J Appl Psychol 2014; 99: 332-340