Original Article

Arriving at Correct Conclusions: The Importance of Association, Causality, and Clinical Significance

Authors: Eric I. Rosenberg, MD, MSPH, Pat Farrington Bass III, MD, MS, Richard A. Davidson, MD, MPH

Abstract

Declaring that a causal and not solely a correlative relation exists between a risk factor and a disease creates significant implications for patients and physicians. No matter the forum, when investigators or clinicians make such a claim, it is essential to explain how this determination was made so that appropriate recommendations are made in all areas of our professional practice. When we review the medical literature it is similarly crucial to understand this distinction between causality and association. The Bradford Hill criteria of strength of association, consistency, temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence, and analogy can be used to help establish causality. It is also important to understand the distinction between clinical and statistical significance to complete our appraisal of the implications of a clinical study. Statistically significant results, although not the result of chance, may be clinically insignificant. Statistically insignificant results, conversely, may not exclude the possibility of a clinically important relation. This article reviews the concepts of causality and association and clinical versus statistical significance and provides examples from the literature.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Weed DL. On the use of causal criteria. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26: 1137–1141.
 
2. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation. Proc R Soc Med 1965; 58: 295–300.
 
3. Susser M. What is a cause and how do we know one? A grammar for pragmatic epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 133: 635–638.
 
4. Holt RG, Peveler RC. Antipsychotic drugs and diabetes—an application of the Austin Bradford Hill criteria. Diabetologia 2006; 49: 1467–1476.
 
5. Aschengrau A, Seage GR. Essentials of Epidemiology in Public Health. Sudbury, MA, Jones & Bartlett, 2007, ed 2.
 
6. Mente A, de Koning L, Shannon HS, et al. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 659–669.
 
7. Friis RH, Sellers TA. Epidemiology in Public Health Practice. Sudbury, MA, Jones & Bartlett, 2009, ed 4.
 
8. Ashby D. Establishing causality in the assessment of safety of medicines for children. Acta Paediatr 2008; 97: 1611–1616.
 
9. Belay ED, Bresee JS, Holman RC, et al. Reye’s syndrome in the United States from 1981 through 1997. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1377–1382.
 
10. Gillenwater JY, Harrison RB, Kunin CM. Natural history of bacteriuria in schoolgirls—a long-term case-control study. N Engl J Med 1979; 301: 396–399.
 
11. Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, et al. Helsinki Heart Study: primary-prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia. Safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 1237–1235.
 
12. Final report on the aspirin component of the ongoing Physicians’ Health Study. Steering Committee of the Physicians’ Health Study Research Group. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 129–135.
 
13. Perry MH Jr, Davis BR, Price TR, et al. Effect of treating isolated systolic hypertension on the risk of developing various types and subtypes of stroke: the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 2000; 284: 465–471.
 
14. Petersen P, Boysen G, Godtfredsen J, et al. Placebo-controlled, randomised trial of warfarin and aspirin for prevention of thromboembolic complications in chronic atrial fibrillation. The Copenhagen AFASAK study. Lancet 1989; 1: 175–179.
 
15. Kaul S, Diamond GA. Trial and error: how to avoid commonly encountered limitations of published clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 415–427.
 
16. Molnar FJ. Systematic review of measures of clinical significance employed in randomized controlled trials of drugs for dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57: 536–546.