This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Rudolph H. De Jong, MD

JAMA. 1970;212(12):2111.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Many times we read that treatment A differs significantly from treatment B, as determined by a certain statistical test. Is treatment A therefore better (or worse as the case may be) than treatment B? Often—but not always.

Take for instance the case of Hypopressin, a new drug to reduce blood pressure. In clinical tests at a prestigious university hospital it decreases average systolic pressure by 2.3 mm Hg as compared with a placebo. This, the authors assure us, is a highly significant (P<0.01) reduction.

No question about it, Hypopressin lowers the average blood pressure—but oh how feebly. Would you use it to treat a patient with malignant hypertension? No, for the drug's effect is therapeutically trifling, little better than the placebo. Statistically significant it is, to be sure. But biologically important? Hardly, I daresay.

The opposite can also happen where, either from large sample-to-sample variation or from a shortage of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle

Footnotes
Address editorial communications to the Editor, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago 60610

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?