| 英文摘要 |
The results of a clinical trial are often simply divided into two dimensions: ''positive results'' or ''negative results.'' A significance level of 5% for the primary efficacy outcome is the minimum requirement if a trial is to be declared to have“positive outcome,”but it is not sufficient. It is important to remember that statistically significant difference does not imply clinical importance and clinical importance does not imply statistical significance. In reality, a more subtle interpretation for clinical trial outcome requires a thorough examination of the totality of the evidence, including secondary endpoints, safety issues, study sample size, the consistency of the treatment effect on the primary and key secondary outcomes, and so on. This review article elaborates on those arguments to interpret the results of several published clinical trials. In addition, issues related to stopping a trial early, the efficacy-risk balance, the flaws in trial design, and the application of trial results in a local setting are also discussed in this article. Health care professionals bear the responsibility for accurately interpreting clinical trial results in order to make the best treatment decisions for each patient. |