To the Editor,
We express gratitude to the authors[1] for showing such keen interest in our article,[2] paving the way for further learning. We would like to bring to attention that any study needs statistical evaluation and reporting.[3] This is first such study done to compare the 4-in-1 block in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair and the unknown threshold of ‘time taken to perform’ with clinical relevance needs mathematical (statistical) analysis to support further research for clinically significant findings.[4] Visual analogue scale has been reported as a practical, reliable, reproducible, easily analysable, and sensitive-to-treatment statistical tool for clinical practice and research, and is widely used.[5] The addition of other measures to the pain scoring, such as rescue analgesic requirement, can validate the statistical findings to clinical setups.[6] Based on the limited study performed by us, calculating the sample size from available data, based on mean and standard deviation,[3,4] we compared the 4-in-1 block as a single-injection alternative to the established combination in the said surgery, concluding non-inferior analgesia. We agree that the extrapolation of any study results to the general population always needs further statistical evaluations.[3,4]
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Mohanty CR, Barik AK, David GA, Radhakrishnan RV. Clinical significance versus statistical significance: Does it matter in clinical practice? Indian J Anaesth. 2025;69:251–2. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_1151_24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Roy R, Agarwal G, Ahuja P, Mohta A. Adductor canal block (ACB) plus infiltration of the posterior capsule of the knee (iPACK) block versus 4-in-1 block in an arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair: A randomised study. Indian J Anaesth. 2024;68:959–64. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_671_24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fox N, Hunn A, Mathers N ‘Sampling and sample size calculation’. The NIHR RDS for the East Midlands/Yorkshire & the Humber. 2009. Available from: https://www.bdct.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sampling-and-Sample-Size-Calculation.pdf . Accessed November 12, 2024.
- 4.Willigenburg NM, Poolman RW. The difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance. The case of minimal important change, non-inferiority trials, and smallest worthwhile effect. Injury. 2023;54:110764. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.04.051. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.04.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J. 2001;18:205–7. doi: 10.1136/emj.18.3.205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE. Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:633–8. doi: 10.1067/mem.2001.118863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]