Subject(s)
Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic/analysis , Epidermolysis Bullosa Acquisita/diagnosis , Eyelid Diseases/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin G/metabolism , Skin/pathology , Aged , Biopsy , Diagnosis, Differential , Epidermolysis Bullosa Acquisita/immunology , Epidermolysis Bullosa Acquisita/metabolism , Eyelid Diseases/immunology , Eyelid Diseases/metabolism , Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Direct , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Male , Skin/metabolism , Skin Diseases, Vesiculobullous/diagnosisABSTRACT
When evaluating the validity of a study, the reader must consider both the clinical and statistical significance of the findings. A study that claims clinical relevance may lack sufficient statistical significance to make a meaningful statement. Conversely, a study that shows a statistically significant difference in 2 treatment options may lack practicality. The concept of power of a clinical trial refers to the probability of detecting a difference between study groups when a true difference exists. We will discuss statistical power by examining studies too small to identify important differences, studies so large as to identify differences that are not clinically significant, difficult-to-design studies without very large patient populations, and those studies with both adequate power and clinically relevant findings. Dermatologists should not focus on small P values alone to decide whether a treatment is clinically useful; it is essential to consider the magnitude of treatment differences and the power of the study.
