DOCSLIB.ORG

Lecture Title

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lecture Title This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. Your use of this material constitutes acceptance of that license and the conditions of use of materials on this site. Copyright 2006, The Johns Hopkins University and John McGready. All rights reserved. Use of these materials permitted only in accordance with license rights granted. Materials provided “AS IS”; no representations or warranties provided. User assumes all responsibility for use, and all liability related thereto, and must independently review all materials for accuracy and efficacy. May contain materials owned by others. User is responsible for obtaining permissions for use from third parties as needed. Comparing Proportions Between Two Independent Populations John McGready Johns Hopkins University Lecture Topics CI’s for difference in proportions between two independent populations Large sample methods for comparing proportions between two populations – Normal method – Chi-squared test Fisher’s exact test Relative risk 3 Section A The Two Sample Z-Test for Comparing Proportions Between Two Independent Populations Comparing Two Proportions We will motivate by using data from the Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trial Group (ACTG) Protocol 076 Study Group1 1 Conner, E., et al. Reduction of Maternal-Infant Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 with Zidovudine Treatment, New England Journal of Medicine 331: 18 Continued 5 Comparing Two Proportions Study Design – “We conducted a randomized, double- blinded, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of zidovudine (AZT) in reducing the risk of maternal-infant HIV transmission” – 363 HIV infected pregnant women were randomized to AZT or placebo Continued 6 Comparing Two Proportions Results – Of the 180 women randomized to AZT group, 13 gave birth to children who tested positive for HIV within 18 months of birth Continued 7 Comparing Two Proportions Result – Of the 183 women randomized to the placebo group, 40 gave birth to children who tested positive for HIV within 18 months of birth 8 Notes on Design Random assignment of Tx – Helps insure two groups are comparable – Patient and physician could not request particular Tx Continued 9 Notes on Design Double blind – Patient and physician did not know Tx assignment 10 HIV Transmission Rates 13 AZT pˆ = = 0.072 AZT 180 40 Placebo pˆ = = 0.219 PLAC 183 Continued 11 HIV Transmission Rates Note—these are NOT the true population parameters for the transmission rates, they are estimates based on our two samples Continued 12 HIV Transmission Rates There is sampling variability 95% confidence intervals – AZT 95% CI .04 - .12 – Placebo 95% CI .16 - .28 13 95% CIs for HIV Transmission Rates AZT nAZT × pˆ AZT × (1− pˆ AZT ) = 180 × 0.072 ×.928 = 12 Placebo nPLAC × pˆ PLAC × (1− pˆ PLAC ) = 183× 0.22 ×.78 = 31 14 HIV Transmission Rates . cii 180 13 -- Binomial Exact -- Variable | Obs Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+--------------------------------------------------------------- | 180 .0722222 .019294 .0390137 .1203358 . cii 183 40 -- Binomial Exact -- Variable | Obs Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+--------------------------------------------------------------- | 183 .2185792 .0305507 .160984 .2855248 15 Notes on HIV Transmission Rates Is the difference significant, or can it be explained by chance? Since CI’s do not overlap suggests significant difference – Can we compute a confidence interval on the difference in proportions? – Can we compute a p-value? 16 Sampling Distribution of the Difference in Sample Means Since we have large samples we know the sampling distributions of the sample proportions in both groups are approximately normal It turns out the difference of quantities, which are (approximately) normally distributed, are also normally distributed Continued 17 Sampling Distribution of the Difference in Sample Means So, the big news is . – The sampling distribution of the difference of two sample proportions, each based on large samples, approximates a normal distribution – This sampling distribution is centered at the true (population) difference, P1 - P2 18 Simulated Sampling Distribution of Sample Proportion Simulated Sampling Distribution, Proportion HIV Infected Children AZT Group, n = 180 15 s le p 10 m a S of e g a t en c 5 r e P 0 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 Sam ple Proportion HIV Infected Children Continued 19 Simulated Sampling Distribution of Sample Proportion Simulated Sampling Distribution, Proportion HIV Infected Children Placebo Group, n = 183 15 s e l p 10 m Sa f o e g a t n e 5 rc Pe 0 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 Sam ple Proportion HIV Infected Children 20 Simulated Sampling Distribution Difference in Sample Proportions Simulated Sampling Distribution, Difference in Proportions (Placebo - AZT) 20 15 s le p m a S of 10 e g a t en c r e P 5 0 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 Difference in Sam ple Proportions HIV Infected Children 21 95% Confidence Interval for Difference in Proportions Our most general formula: (our best estimate) ± 2*(SE of our best estimate) 22 95% Confidence Interval for Difference in Means Well, our best estimate for the mean difference would be : pˆ1 − pˆ 2 Where . – pˆ1= proportion HIV infected children in AZT group – pˆ 2= proportion HIV infected children in placebo group Continued 23 95% Confidence Interval for Difference in Means Since pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 = 0.07-.22 = - 0.15, our formula is . -.15 ± 2 SE ( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) SE( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 )= standard error of the difference of two sample means 24 Two Independent Groups Statisticians have developed formulas for the standard error of the difference – These formulas depend on sample sizes in both groups and sample proportion in both groups Continued 25 Two Independent Groups The SE ( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) is greater than either the SE ( p ˆ 1 ) or SE( pˆ 2 ) Why do you think this is? Continued 26 Two Independent Groups In the example . SE ( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) = .036 SE ( pˆ 1 ) = .019 SE ( pˆ 2 ) = .031 27 Example 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions SE ( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) -.15 ± 2 -.15 ± 2 *.036 -.15 ± .07 -0.22 to -0.08 28 Note The confidence interval does not include 0 29 The SE of the Difference in Sample Proportions Variation from independent sources can be added 2 2 Variance( pˆ − pˆ ) = [SE( pˆ )] + [SE( pˆ )] 1 2 1 2 pˆ1 (1 − pˆ1 ) pˆ 2 (1 − pˆ 2 ) Variance( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) = + n1 n2 Why do you think we add? Continued 30 The SE of the Difference in Sample Proportions Variation from independent sources can be added pˆ1 (1 − pˆ1 ) pˆ 2 (1 − pˆ 2 ) SE( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) = + n1 n2 31 Principle Formula depends on n1, n2, pˆ 1 , pˆ 2 There are other slightly different equations for (e.g. Altman, p.234) SE ( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) But they all give similar answers 32 Simple Approximation Method to Compare Proportions Hypotheses H0: P1 = P2 Ha: P1 ≠ P2 Continued 33 Simple Approximation Method to Compare Proportions Hypotheses H0: P1 -P2 = 0 Ha: P1 -P2 ≠ 0 Continued 34 Simple Approximation Method to Compare Proportions Recall the general “recipe” for hypothesis testing: 1. State null and alternative hypotheses 2. Calculate test statistic based on sample 3. Compare test statistic to appropriate distribution to get p-value Continued 35 Simple Approximation Method to Compare Proportions Principle – General formula for test statistic . (observed diff ) - (null diff) test = SE of the difference 36 Comparing Proportions But since null difference is zero, this reduces to . (observed diff ) test = SE of the difference Continued 37 Comparing Proportions Principle – Estimate parameter (the difference) divide by SE of estimate pˆ − pˆ Z = 1 2 SE( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) 38 Two-Sample z-test for Comparing Proportions Which is just . pˆ − pˆ Z = 1 2 SE( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) .07 − (.22 ) − .15 z = = = −4.2 .036 .036 39 Note This is a two sample z-test for comparing two proportions – The value z = - 4.2 is the test statistic We calculate a p-value which is the probability of obtaining a test statistic as extreme as we did if H0 was true 40 How Are p-values Calculated? Is a result 4.2 standard errors below 0 unusual? – It depends on what kind of distribution we are dealing with Continued 41 How Are p-values Calculated? The p-value is the probability of getting a test statistic as or more extreme than what you observed (- 4.2) by chance if H0 was true The p-value comes from the sampling distribution of the difference in two sample proportions 42 Sampling Distribution What is sampling distribution of the difference in sample proportions? – If both groups are large then this distribution is approximately normal 43 AZT Study So, since both our samples are large our sampling distribution will be approximately normal – This sampling distribution will be centered at true difference, P1 -P2 – Under null hypothesis, this true difference is 0 Continued 44 AZT Study To compute a p-value, we would need to compute the probability of being 4.2 or more standard errors away from 0 on a standard normal curve - 4.2 4.2 0 Continued 45 AZT Study If we were to look this up on a normal table, we would find a very low p-value (p < .001) 46 Notes This method is also essentially equivalent to the chi-square (χ2) method – Gives about the same answer – (p-value) – We will discuss chi-square method next 47 Display Data in a 2x2 Table Two rows and two columns Contingency table Drug Group AZT Placebo 13 40 53 HIV Yes Transmission No 167 143 310 180 183 363 Continued 48 Display Data in a 2x2 Table Grand total Drug Group AZT Placebo 13
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Descriptive Statistics (Part 2): Interpreting Study Results
    Statistical Notes II Descriptive statistics (Part 2): Interpreting study results A Cook and A Sheikh he previous paper in this series looked at ‘baseline’. Investigations of treatment effects can be descriptive statistics, showing how to use and made in similar fashion by comparisons of disease T interpret fundamental measures such as the probability in treated and untreated patients. mean and standard deviation. Here we continue with descriptive statistics, looking at measures more The relative risk (RR), also sometimes known as specific to medical research. We start by defining the risk ratio, compares the risk of exposed and risk and odds, the two basic measures of disease unexposed subjects, while the odds ratio (OR) probability. Then we show how the effect of a disease compares odds. A relative risk or odds ratio greater risk factor, or a treatment, can be measured using the than one indicates an exposure to be harmful, while relative risk or the odds ratio. Finally we discuss the a value less than one indicates a protective effect. ‘number needed to treat’, a measure derived from the RR = 1.2 means exposed people are 20% more likely relative risk, which has gained popularity because of to be diseased, RR = 1.4 means 40% more likely. its clinical usefulness. Examples from the literature OR = 1.2 means that the odds of disease is 20% higher are used to illustrate important concepts. in exposed people. RISK AND ODDS Among workers at factory two (‘exposed’ workers) The probability of an individual becoming diseased the risk is 13 / 116 = 0.11, compared to an ‘unexposed’ is the risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitations of the Odds Ratio in Gauging the Performance of a Diagnostic, Prognostic, Or Screening Marker
    American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 159, No. 9 Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Printed in U.S.A. All rights reserved DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh101 Limitations of the Odds Ratio in Gauging the Performance of a Diagnostic, Prognostic, or Screening Marker Margaret Sullivan Pepe1,2, Holly Janes2, Gary Longton1, Wendy Leisenring1,2,3, and Polly Newcomb1 1 Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. 2 Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3 Division of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. Downloaded from Received for publication June 24, 2003; accepted for publication October 28, 2003. A marker strongly associated with outcome (or disease) is often assumed to be effective for classifying persons http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/ according to their current or future outcome. However, for this assumption to be true, the associated odds ratio must be of a magnitude rarely seen in epidemiologic studies. In this paper, an illustration of the relation between odds ratios and receiver operating characteristic curves shows, for example, that a marker with an odds ratio of as high as 3 is in fact a very poor classification tool. If a marker identifies 10% of controls as positive (false positives) and has an odds ratio of 3, then it will correctly identify only 25% of cases as positive (true positives). The authors illustrate that a single measure of association such as an odds ratio does not meaningfully describe a marker’s ability to classify subjects. Appropriate statistical methods for assessing and reporting the classification power of a marker are described.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Industry E2E Pharmacovigilance Planning
    Guidance for Industry E2E Pharmacovigilance Planning U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) April 2005 ICH Guidance for Industry E2E Pharmacovigilance Planning Additional copies are available from: Office of Training and Communication Division of Drug Information, HFD-240 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 (Tel) 301-827-4573 http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm Office of Communication, Training and Manufacturers Assistance, HFM-40 Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448 http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm. (Tel) Voice Information System at 800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) April 2005 ICH Contains Nonbinding Recommendations TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (1, 1.1) ................................................................................................... 1 A. Background (1.2) ..................................................................................................................2 B. Scope of the Guidance (1.3)...................................................................................................2 II. SAFETY SPECIFICATION (2) .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Relative Risks, Odds Ratios and Cluster Randomised Trials . (1)
    1 Relative Risks, Odds Ratios and Cluster Randomised Trials Michael J Campbell, Suzanne Mason, Jon Nicholl Abstract It is well known in cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a logistic link that the population average model and cluster specific model estimate different population parameters for the odds ratio. However, it is less well appreciated that for a log link, the population parameters are the same and a log link leads to a relative risk. This suggests that for a prospective cluster randomised trial the relative risk is easier to interpret. Commonly the odds ratio and the relative risk have similar values and are interpreted similarly. However, when the incidence of events is high they can differ quite markedly, and it is unclear which is the better parameter . We explore these issues in a cluster randomised trial, the Paramedic Practitioner Older People’s Support Trial3 . Key words: Cluster randomized trials, odds ratio, relative risk, population average models, random effects models 1 Introduction Given two groups, with probabilities of binary outcomes of π0 and π1 , the Odds Ratio (OR) of outcome in group 1 relative to group 0 is related to Relative Risk (RR) by: . If there are covariates in the model , one has to estimate π0 at some covariate combination. One can see from this relationship that if the relative risk is small, or the probability of outcome π0 is small then the odds ratio and the relative risk will be close. One can also show, using the delta method, that approximately (1). ________________________________________________________________________________ Michael J Campbell, Medical Statistics Group, ScHARR, Regent Court, 30 Regent St, Sheffield S1 4DA [email protected] 2 Note that this result is derived for non-clustered data.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Relative Risk, Odds Ratio, and Related Terms: As Simple As It Can Get Chittaranjan Andrade, MD
    Understanding Relative Risk, Odds Ratio, and Related Terms: As Simple as It Can Get Chittaranjan Andrade, MD Each month in his online Introduction column, Dr Andrade Many research papers present findings as odds ratios (ORs) and considers theoretical and relative risks (RRs) as measures of effect size for categorical outcomes. practical ideas in clinical Whereas these and related terms have been well explained in many psychopharmacology articles,1–5 this article presents a version, with examples, that is meant with a view to update the knowledge and skills to be both simple and practical. Readers may note that the explanations of medical practitioners and examples provided apply mostly to randomized controlled trials who treat patients with (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies. Nevertheless, similar psychiatric conditions. principles operate when these concepts are applied in epidemiologic Department of Psychopharmacology, National Institute research. Whereas the terms may be applied slightly differently in of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India different explanatory texts, the general principles are the same. ([email protected]). ABSTRACT Clinical Situation Risk, and related measures of effect size (for Consider a hypothetical RCT in which 76 depressed patients were categorical outcomes) such as relative risks and randomly assigned to receive either venlafaxine (n = 40) or placebo odds ratios, are frequently presented in research (n = 36) for 8 weeks. During the trial, new-onset sexual dysfunction articles. Not all readers know how these statistics was identified in 8 patients treated with venlafaxine and in 3 patients are derived and interpreted, nor are all readers treated with placebo. These results are presented in Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 Mrna Vaccine Clinical Trials
    medicina Perspective Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials Ronald B. Brown School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L3G1, Canada; [email protected] Abstract: Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Keywords: mRNA vaccine; COVID-19 vaccine; vaccine efficacy; relative risk reduction; absolute risk reduction; number needed to vaccinate; outcome reporting bias; clinical epidemiology; critical appraisal; evidence-based medicine Citation: Brown, R.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Comparisons
    Making comparisons • Previous sessions looked at how to describe a single group of subjects • However, we are often interested in comparing two groups Data can be interpreted using the following fundamental questions: • Is there a difference? Examine the effect size • How big is it? • What are the implications of conducting the study on a sample of people (confidence interval) • Is the effect real? Could the observed effect size be a chance finding in this particular study? (p-values or statistical significance) • Are the results clinically important? 1 Effect size • A single quantitative summary measure used to interpret research data, and communicate the results more easily • It is obtained by comparing an outcome measure between two or more groups of people (or other object) • Types of effect sizes, and how they are analysed, depend on the type of outcome measure used: – Counting people (i.e. categorical data) – Taking measurements on people (i.e. continuous data) – Time-to-event data Example Aim: • Is Ventolin effective in treating asthma? Design: • Randomised clinical trial • 100 micrograms vs placebo, both delivered by an inhaler Outcome measures: • Whether patients had a severe exacerbation or not • Number of episode-free days per patient (defined as days with no symptoms and no use of rescue medication during one year) 2 Main results proportion of patients Mean No. of episode- No. of Treatment group with severe free days during the patients exacerbation year GROUP A 210 0.30 (63/210) 187 Ventolin GROUP B placebo 213 0.40 (85/213)
    [Show full text]
  • Relative Risk Cutoffs For-Statistical-Significance
    V0b Relative Risk Cutoffs for Statistical Significance 2014 Milo Schield, Augsburg College Abstract: Relative risks are often presented in the everyday media but are seldom mentioned in introductory statistics courses or textbooks. This paper reviews the confidence interval associated with a relative risk ratio. Statistical significance is taken to be any relative risk where the associated 90% confidence interval does not include unity. The exact solution for the minimum statistically-significant relative risk is complex. A simple iterative solution is presented. Several simplifications are examined. A Poisson solution is presented for those times when the Normal is not justified. 1. Relative risk in the everyday media In the everyday media, relative risks are presented in two ways: explicitly using the phrase “relative risk” or implicitly involving an explicit comparison of two rates or percentages, or by simply presenting two rates or percentages from which a comparison or relative risk can be easily generated. Here are some examples (Burnham, 2009): the risk of developing acute non-lymphoblastic leukaemia was seven times greater compared with children who lived in the same area , but not next to a petrol station Bosch and colleagues ( p 699 ) report that the relative risk of any stroke was reduced by 32 % in patients receiving ramipril compared with placebo Women of normal weight and who were physically active but had high glycaemic loads and high fructose intakes were also at greater risk (53 % and 57 % increase respectively ) than
    [Show full text]
  • HAR202: Introduction to Quantitative Research Skills
    HAR202: Introduction to Quantitative Research Skills Dr Jenny Freeman [email protected] Page 1 Contents Course Outline: Introduction to Quantitative Research Skills 3 Timetable 5 LECTURE HANDOUTS 7 Introduction to study design 7 Data display and summary 18 Sampling with confidence 28 Estimation and hypothesis testing 36 Living with risk 43 Categorical data 49 Simple tests for continuous data handout 58 Correlation and Regression 69 Appendix 79 Introduction to SPSS for Windows 79 Displaying and tabulating data lecture handout 116 Useful websites*: 133 Glossary of Terms 135 Figure 1: Statistical methods for comparing two independent groups or samples 143 Figure 2: Statistical methods for differences or paired samples 144 Table 1: Statistical methods for two variables measured on the same sample of subjects 145 BMJ Papers 146 Sifting the evidence – what’s wrong with significance tests? 146 Users’ guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research papers 155 Scope tutorials 160 The visual display of quantitative information 160 Describing and summarising data 165 The Normal Distribution 169 Hypothesis testing and estimation 173 Randomisation in clinical investigations 177 Basic tests for continuous Normally distributed data 181 Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum tests 184 The analysis of categorical data 188 Fisher’s Exact test 192 Use of Statistical Tables 194 Exercises and solutions 197 Displaying and summarising data 197 Sampling with confidence 205 Estimation and hypothesis testing 210 Risk 216 Correlation and Regression 223 Page 2 Course Outline: Introduction to Quantitative Research Skills This module will introduce students to the basic concepts and techniques in quantitative research methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Measures of Effect & Potential Impact
    Measures of Effect & Potential Impact Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD Assistant Professor McGill University, Montreal, Canada [email protected] 1 Big Picture Measures of Measures of Measures of potential disease freq effect impact First, we calculate measure of disease frequency in Group 1 vs. Group 2 (e.g. exposed vs. unexposed; treatment vs. placebo, etc.) Then we calculate measures of effect (which aims to quantify the strength of the association): Either as a ratio or as a difference: Ratio = (Measure of disease, group 1) / (Measure of disease, group 2) Difference = (Measure of disease, group 1) - (Measure of disease, group 2) Lastly, we calculate measures of impact, to address the question: if we removed or reduced the exposure, then how much of the disease burden can we reduce? Impact of exposure removal in the exposed group (AR, AR%) Impact of exposure remove in the entire population (PAR, PAR%) 2 Note: there is some overlap between measures of effect and impact 3 Measures of effect: standard 2 x 2 contingency epi table for count data (cohort or case-control or RCT or cross-sectional) Disease - Disease - no Column yes total (Margins) Exposure - a b a+b yes Exposure - c d c+d no Row total a+c b+d a+b+c+d (Margins) 4 Measures of effect: 2 x 2 contingency table for a cohort study or RCT with person-time data Disease - Disease - Total yes no Exposure - a - PYe yes Exposure – c - PY0 no Total a+c - PYe + PY0 Person-time in the unexposed group = PY0 5 Person-time in the exposed group = PYe STATA format for a 2x2 table [note that exposure
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Statistics PDF File 9
    M249 Practical modern statistics Medical statistics About this module M249 Practical modern statistics uses the software packages IBM SPSS Statistics (SPSS Inc.) and WinBUGS, and other software. This software is provided as part of the module, and its use is covered in the Introduction to statistical modelling and in the four computer books associated with Books 1 to 4. This publication forms part of an Open University module. Details of this and other Open University modules can be obtained from the Student Registration and Enquiry Service, The Open University, PO Box 197, Milton Keynes MK7 6BJ, United Kingdom (tel. +44 (0)845 300 60 90; email [email protected]). Alternatively, you may visit the Open University website at www.open.ac.uk where you can learn more about the wide range of modules and packs offered at all levels by The Open University. To purchase a selection of Open University materials visit www.ouw.co.uk, or contact Open University Worldwide, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom for a brochure (tel. +44 (0)1908 858779; fax +44 (0)1908 858787; email [email protected]). Note to reader Mathematical/statistical content at the Open University is usually provided to students in printed books, with PDFs of the same online. This format ensures that mathematical notation is presented accurately and clearly. The PDF of this extract thus shows the content exactly as it would be seen by an Open University student. Please note that the PDF may contain references to other parts of the module and/or to software or audio-visual components of the module.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 Chi-Square Test Relative Risk/Odds Ratios
    UCLA STAT 13 Introduction to Statistical Methods for the Chapter 10 Life and Health Sciences Chi-Square Test Instructor: Ivo Dinov, Asst. Prof. of Statistics and Neurology Relative Risk/Odds Ratios Teaching Assistants: Fred Phoa, Kirsten Johnson, Ming Zheng & Matilda Hsieh University of California, Los Angeles, Fall 2005 http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~dinov/courses_students.html Slide 1 Stat 13, UCLA, Ivo Dinov Slide 2 Stat 13, UCLA, Ivo Dinov Further Considerations in Paired Experiments Further Considerations in Paired Experiments Example: A researcher conducts a study to examine the z Many studies compare measurements effect of a new anti-smoking pill on smoking behavior. before and after treatment Suppose he has collected data on 25 randomly selected There can be difficulty because the effect of smokers, 12 will receive treatment (a treatment pill once a treatment could be confounded with other changes day for three months) and 13 will receive a placebo (a over time or outside variability mock pill once a day for three months). The researcher for example suppose we want to study a cholesterol measures the number of cigarettes smoked per week lowering medication. Some patients may have a before and after treatment, regardless of treatment group. response because they are under study, not because of Assume normality. The summary statistics are: the medication. We can protect against this by using # cigs / week n ybefore y SE randomized concurrent controls after d d Treatment 12 163.92 152.50 11.42 1.10 Placebo 13 163.08 160.23 2.85 1.29 Slide 3 Stat 13, UCLA, Ivo Dinov Slide 4 Stat 13, UCLA, Ivo Dinov Further Considerations in Paired Experiments Further Considerations in Paired Experiments Test to see if there is a difference in number of cigs smoked per week before and after the new z This result does not necessarily demonstrate α treatment, using = 0.05 the effectiveness of the new medication µ Ho: d = 0 # cigs / week Smoking less per week could be due to the fact that µ n SE Ha: d != 0 d d patients know they are being studied (ie.
    [Show full text]