Reporting the results of meta-analyses: A plea for incorporating clinical relevance referring to an example

Abstract Background Context The results of meta-analyses are frequently reported, but understanding and interpreting them is difficult for both clinicians and patients. Statistical significances are presented without referring to values that imply clinical relevance. Purpose To use the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) to rate the clinical relevance of a meta-analysis. Study design Review of the literature. Patient sample meta-analyses Outcome measure MCID Methods We performed an extensive literature search of a series of meta-analyses evaluating a similar subject as an example. We searched in Pubmed and Embase through August 9, 2016 and found articles concerning meta-analyses of the clinical outcome of cervical arthroplasty compared to that of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion in cases of cervical degenerative disease. We evaluated the analyses for statistical significance and their relation to MCID. MCID was defined based on results in similar patient groups and a similar disease entity reported in the literature. Results We identified 21 meta-analyses, only one of which referred to MCID. However, the researchers used an inappropriate measurement scale and, therefore, an incorrect MCID. The majority of the conclusions were based on statistical results without mentioning clinical relevance. Conclusions The majority of the articles we reviewed drew conclusions based on statistical differences instead of clinical relevance. We recommend introducing the concept of MCID while reporting the results of a meta-analysis, as well as mentioning the explicit scale of the analyzed measurement.