© 2000 Evidence-Based Nursing
EBN notebook
Estimating treatment effects: real or the result of chance?
Department of Health Studies University of York, York, UK
The Notebook in the January 2000 issue of Evidence-Based Nursing described how the outcomes of clinical trials are measured and summarised before analysis. We now discuss how we can tell, by using and interpreting statistical tests, if treatments have a real effect on health or if the apparent effects of treatments under trial are a result of chance.When critically reading a report of a clinical trial, one of the things we are interested in is whether the results of the study provide an accurate estimate of the true treatment effect in the type of patients included in the study.
Even if a study has been carried out in a methodologically sound (unbiased) way, a study result such as "5% more wounds healed in the treatment compared with the control group" does not necessarily mean that this is a true treatment effect. This finding could be a chance occurrence
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Ciliska, D., Cullum, N., Marks, S.
(2001). Evaluation of systematic reviews of treatment or prevention interventions. Evid. Based Nurs.
4: 100-104
[Full Text] -
Cullum, N.
(2001). Evaluation of studies of treatment or prevention interventions. Part 2: applying the results of studies to your patients. Evid. Based Nurs.
4: 7-8
[Full Text]
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
