Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 980–980 | Cite as

Reviewer’s Comments on the Letter to the Editor entitled “Generalising the results: how can we improve our reports?” by Saltychev M, Eskola M (2018). Eur Spine J; doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5558-4

  • Kimberley L. Edwards
Reviewer's Comment

I completely agree regarding the use of 95% confidence interval and risk/odds ratios (use odds ratio if rare outcome/case–control study design rather than risk ratio—which the authors do not mention) to help describe the likely effect in a different sample. In addition, I frequently advise people about MCID and effect size not being the same as statistical significance. For example, who cares if surgery A is better than surgery B/conservative management/whatever is statistically significantly different compared to the other one if the difference in (say) return to work was 1 day (e.g. 90 vs. 91 days).

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedics, Trauma and Sports Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations