DOCSLIB.ORG

Statistical Methods Programmed in Metaview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statistical Methods Programmed in Metaview Statistical algorithms in Review Manager 5 Jonathan J Deeks and Julian PT Higgins on behalf of the Statistical Methods Group of The Cochrane Collaboration August 2010 Data structure Consider a meta-analysis of k studies. When the studies have a dichotomous (binary) outcome the results of each study can be presented in a 2×2 table (Table 1) giving the numbers of participant who do or do not experience the event in each of the two groups (here called experimental (or 1) and control (or 2)). Table 1: Binary data Study i Event No event Total Experimental ai bi n1i Control ci di n2i If the outcome is a continuous measure, the number of participants in each of the two groups, their mean response and the standard deviation of their responses are required to perform meta-analysis (Table 2). Table 2: Continuous data Group Mean Standard Study i size response deviation Experimental n1i m1i sd1i Control n2i m2i sd 2i If the outcome is analysed by comparing observed with expected values (for example using the Peto method or a log-rank approach for time-to-event data), then ‘O – E’ statistics and their variances are required to perform the meta-analysis. Group sizes may also be entered by the review author, but are not involved in the analysis. Table 3: O minus E and variance Variance of Group size Group size Study i O minus E (O minus E) (experimental) (control) Zi Vi n1i n2i For other outcomes a generic approach can be used, the user directly specifying the values of the intervention effect estimate and its standard error for each study (the standard error may be calculable from a confidence interval). ‘Ratio’ measures of effect effects (e.g. odds ratio, risk ratio, hazard ratio, ratio of means) will normally be expressed on a log-scale, ‘difference’ measures of 1 effect (e.g. risk difference, differences in means) will normally be expressed on their natural scale. Group sizes can optionally be entered by the review author, but are not involved in the analysis. Table 4: Generic data Estimate of Standard error of Group size Group size Study i effect estimate (experimental) (control) ˆ SE θˆ n n θi { i } 1i 2i Formulae for individual studies Individual study estimates: dichotomous outcomes Peto odds ratio For study i denote the cell counts as in Table 1, with n1i= a i+ b i , n2i= c i + di , and let Ni= n1 i + n 2 i . For the Peto method, the individual odds ratios are given by ⎧Zi ⎫ ORPeto, i = exp ⎨ ⎬. ⎩⎭Vi The logarithm of the odds ratio has standard error 1 SE{} ln ()ORPeto, i = , Vi where Zi is the ‘O – E’ statistic: Zii=−aaE[ i], with na1ii( + c i) E[]ai = Ni (the expected number of events in the experimental intervention group), and nn12iiiiii( a++ c)( b d) Vi = 2 NNii()−1 (the hypergeometric variance of ai ). Odds ratio For methods other than the Peto method, the odds ratio for each study is given by adii ORi = , bcii the standard error of the log odds ratio being 1111 SE{} ln ()ORi = +++ . abcdiii i Risk ratio The risk ratio for each study is given by anii/ 1 RRi = , cnii/ 2 2 the standard error of the log risk ratio being 111 1 SE{} ln ()RRi =+−−. acnii12 i ni Risk difference The risk difference for each study is given by acii RDi =−, nn12ii with standard error abii cd i i SE{}RDi =+33. nn12ii Empty cells Where zeros cause problems with computation of effects or standard errors, 0.5 is added to all cells (,,,ai bi ci d i ) for that study, except when ai= c i = 0 or bi= d i = 0 , when the relative effect measures ORi and RRi are undefined. Individual study estimates: continuous outcomes Denote the number of participants, mean and standard deviation as in Table 2, and let Ni= n1 i+ n 2 i and 22 ()nsdnsd112iii−+−11 ()2i si = Ni − 2 be the pooled standard deviation across the two groups. Difference in means (mean difference) The difference in means (referred to as mean difference) is given by MDmmii= 12− i, with standard error 22 sd12ii sd SE{}MDi =+. nn12ii Standardized difference in means (standardized mean difference) There are several popular formulations of the standardized mean difference. The one implemented in RevMan is Hedges’ adjusted g, which is very similar to Cohen's d, but includes an adjustment for small sample bias mm12ii− ⎛⎞3 SMDi =−⎜⎟1 , sNii⎝⎠49− with standard error 2 NSMDii SE{}SMDi =+ . nn12ii23.9() N i− 4 3 Individual study estimates: O – E and variance For study i the effect estimate is given by ˆ Zi θ=i , Vi with standard error ˆ 1 SE{}θ=i . Vi The effect estimate is either of a log odds ratio or a log hazard ratio, depending on how the observed and expected values were derived. Individual study estimates: Generic method As the user directly enters the intervention effect estimates and their standard errors no further processing is needed. All types of intervention effects are eligible for this method, but it might be most useful when intervention effects have been calculated in a way which makes special consideration of design (e.g. cluster randomized and cross-over trials), are adjusted for other effects (adjusted effects from non-randomized studies) or are not covered by existing methods (e.g. ratios of means, relative event rates). Meta-analysis methods All summations are over i, from 1 to the number of studies, unless otherwise specified. Mantel-Haenszel methods for combining results across studies Odds ratio The Mantel-Haenszel summary log odds ratio is given by ⎛⎞wOR lnOR = ln ∑ MHi, i , (1) ()MH ⎜⎟ ⎝⎠∑ wMH, i and the Mantel-Haenszel summary odds ratio by ∑ wORMHi, i ORMH = , ∑ wMH, i where each study’s odds ratio is given weight bcii wMH, i = . Ni The summary log odds ratio has standard error given by 1 ⎛EFGH+ ⎞ SE{} ln ()ORMH =++⎜22⎟, (2) 2 ⎝⎠R RS S where ad bc R = ∑ ii; S = ∑ ii; Ni Ni 4 ()adad+ (adbc+ ) E iiii; F iiii; = ∑ 2 = ∑ 2 Ni Ni ()bcad+ (bcbc+ ) G iiii; H iiii. = ∑ 2 = ∑ 2 Ni Ni Risk ratio The Mantel-Haenszel summary log risk ratio is given by ⎛⎞wRR lnRR = ln ∑ MHi, i , (3) ()MH ⎜⎟ ⎝⎠∑ wMH, i and the Mantel-Haenszel summary risk ratio by ∑ wRRMHi, i RRMH = , ∑ wMH, i where each study’s risk ratio is given weight caii( + b i) wMH, i = . Ni The summary log risk ratio has standard error given by P SE{} ln ()RRMH = , (4) RS where nn() a+− c acN an cn P 12ii i i iii; R = ii2 ; S = ii1 . = ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ Ni Ni Ni Risk difference The Mantel-Haenszel summary risk difference is given by ∑ wRDMHi, i RDMH = , (5) ∑ wMH, i where each study’s risk difference is given weight nn12ii wMH, i = . Ni The summary risk difference has standard error given by J SE{}RD = , (6) MH K 2 where abn33+ cdn nn J ii21 i i i i; K = 12ii. = ∑ 2 ∑ nn12iii N Ni Test for heterogeneity The heterogeneity test statistic is given by ˆˆ 2 QwMH =θ−θ∑ i( i MH ) , 5 ˆ where θ represents the log odds ratio, log risk ratio or risk difference and the wi are the weights ˆ 2 calculated as 1SE{θi } rather than the weights used for the Mantel-Haenszel meta-analyses. Under the null hypothesis that there are no differences in intervention effect among studies this follows a chi-squared distribution with k −1 degrees of freedom (where k is the number of studies contributing to the meta-analysis). The statistic I2 is calculated as ⎧ QkMH −−( 1) ⎫ I 2 =×max⎨ 100% ,0⎬ ⎩⎭QMH This measures the extent of inconsistency among the studies’ results, and is interpreted as approximately the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error. Inverse-variance methods for combining results across studies Inverse-variance methods are used to pool log odds ratios, log risk ratios and risk differences as one of the analysis options for binary data, to pool all mean differences and standardized mean differences for continuous data, and also for combining intervention effect estimates in the generic ˆ method. In the general formula the intervention effect estimate is denoted by θi , which is the study’s log odds ratio, log risk ratio, risk difference, mean difference or standardized mean difference, or the estimate of intervention effect in the generic method. The individual effect sizes are weighted according to the reciprocal of their variance (calculated as the square of the standard error given in the individual study section above) giving 1 wi = 2 . SE θˆ (){}i These are combined to give a summary estimate w θˆ ˆ ∑ ii θ=IV . (7) ∑ wi with ˆ 1 SE{θ=IV } . (8) ∑ wi The heterogeneity statistic is given by a similar formula as for the Mantel-Haenszel method: ˆˆ2 QwIV =θ−θ∑ i( i IV ) . Under the null hypothesis that there are no differences in intervention effect among studies this follows a chi-squared distribution with k −1 degrees of freedom (where k is the number of studies contributing to the meta-analysis). I2 is calculated as 2 ⎧ QkIV −−( 1) ⎫ I =×max⎨ 100% ,0⎬. ⎩⎭QIV Peto's method for combining results across studies The Peto summary log odds ratio is given by 6 ∑VORiPetoln ( ,i) ln ()ORPeto = . (9) ∑Vi and the summary odds ratio by ⎧ ⎫ ⎪∑VORiPetoiln ( , )⎪ ORPeto = exp ⎨ ⎬ , V ⎪⎩⎭∑ i ⎪ where the odds ratio ORPeto, i is calculated using the approximate method described in the individual study section, and Vi are the hypergeometric variances.
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]
  • Challenging Issues in Clinical Trial Design: Part 4 of a 4-Part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials
    Challenging Issues in Clinical Trial Design: Part 4 of a 4-part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials Brief title: Challenges in Trial Design Stuart J. Pocock, PHD,* Tim C. Clayton, MSC,* Gregg W. Stone, MD† From the: *London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; †Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York <COR> Reprint requests and correspondence: Prof. Stuart J. Pocock, Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 20 7927 2413 Fax: +44 20 7637 2853 E-mail: [email protected] Disclosures: The authors declare no conflicts of interest for this paper. 1 Abstract As a sequel to last week’s article on the fundamentals of clinical trial design, this article tackles related controversial issues: noninferiority trials; the value of factorial designs; the importance and challenges of strategy trials; Data Monitoring Committees (including when to stop a trial early); and the role of adaptive designs. All topics are illustrated by relevant examples from cardiology trials. <KW>Key words: Noninferiority trials; Factorial designs; Strategy trials, Data Monitoring Committees; Statistical stopping guidelines; Adaptive designs; Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic; Abbreviations ACS = acute coronary syndrome CABG = coronary artery bypass graft CI = confidence interval CV = cardiovascular DMC = Data Monitoring Committee FDA = Food and Drug Administration MACE = major adverse cardiovascular event OMT = optimal medical therapy PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention 2 Introduction Randomized controlled trials are the cornerstone of clinical guidelines informing best therapeutic practices, however their design and interpretation may be complex and nuanced.
    [Show full text]
  • Meta-Analysis of Proportions
    NCSS Statistical Software NCSS.com Chapter 456 Meta-Analysis of Proportions Introduction This module performs a meta-analysis of a set of two-group, binary-event studies. These studies have a treatment group (arm) and a control group. The results of each study may be summarized as counts in a 2-by-2 table. The program provides a complete set of numeric reports and plots to allow the investigation and presentation of the studies. The plots include the forest plot, radial plot, and L’Abbe plot. Both fixed-, and random-, effects models are available for analysis. Meta-Analysis refers to methods for the systematic review of a set of individual studies with the aim to combine their results. Meta-analysis has become popular for a number of reasons: 1. The adoption of evidence-based medicine which requires that all reliable information is considered. 2. The desire to avoid narrative reviews which are often misleading. 3. The desire to interpret the large number of studies that may have been conducted about a specific treatment. 4. The desire to increase the statistical power of the results be combining many small-size studies. The goals of meta-analysis may be summarized as follows. A meta-analysis seeks to systematically review all pertinent evidence, provide quantitative summaries, integrate results across studies, and provide an overall interpretation of these studies. We have found many books and articles on meta-analysis. In this chapter, we briefly summarize the information in Sutton et al (2000) and Thompson (1998). Refer to those sources for more details about how to conduct a meta- analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Survival Analysis: Part I — Analysis Korean Journal of Anesthesiology of Time-To-Event
    Statistical Round pISSN 2005-6419 • eISSN 2005-7563 KJA Survival analysis: Part I — analysis Korean Journal of Anesthesiology of time-to-event Junyong In1 and Dong Kyu Lee2 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, 1Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, 2Guro Hospital, Korea University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea Length of time is a variable often encountered during data analysis. Survival analysis provides simple, intuitive results concerning time-to-event for events of interest, which are not confined to death. This review introduces methods of ana- lyzing time-to-event. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression model- ing method are described with examples of hypothetical data. Keywords: Censored data; Cox regression; Hazard ratio; Kaplan-Meier method; Log-rank test; Medical statistics; Power analysis; Proportional hazards; Sample size; Survival analysis. Introduction mation of the time [2]. The Korean Journal of Anesthesiology has thus far published In a clinical trial or clinical study, an investigational treat- several papers using survival analysis for clinical outcomes: a ment is administered to subjects, and the resulting outcome data comparison of 90-day survival rate for pressure ulcer develop- are collected and analyzed after a certain period of time. Most ment or non-development after surgery under general anesthesia statistical analysis methods do not include the length of time [3], a comparison of postoperative 5-year recurrence rate in as a variable, and analysis is made only on the trial outcomes patients with breast cancer depending on the type of anesthetic upon completion of the study period, as specified in the study agent used [4], and a comparison of airway intubation success protocol.
    [Show full text]
  • FORMULAS from EPIDEMIOLOGY KEPT SIMPLE (3E) Chapter 3: Epidemiologic Measures
    FORMULAS FROM EPIDEMIOLOGY KEPT SIMPLE (3e) Chapter 3: Epidemiologic Measures Basic epidemiologic measures used to quantify: • frequency of occurrence • the effect of an exposure • the potential impact of an intervention. Epidemiologic Measures Measures of disease Measures of Measures of potential frequency association impact (“Measures of Effect”) Incidence Prevalence Absolute measures of Relative measures of Attributable Fraction Attributable Fraction effect effect in exposed cases in the Population Incidence proportion Incidence rate Risk difference Risk Ratio (Cumulative (incidence density, (Incidence proportion (Incidence Incidence, Incidence hazard rate, person- difference) Proportion Ratio) Risk) time rate) Incidence odds Rate Difference Rate Ratio (Incidence density (Incidence density difference) ratio) Prevalence Odds Ratio Difference Macintosh HD:Users:buddygerstman:Dropbox:eks:formula_sheet.doc Page 1 of 7 3.1 Measures of Disease Frequency No. of onsets Incidence Proportion = No. at risk at beginning of follow-up • Also called risk, average risk, and cumulative incidence. • Can be measured in cohorts (closed populations) only. • Requires follow-up of individuals. No. of onsets Incidence Rate = ∑person-time • Also called incidence density and average hazard. • When disease is rare (incidence proportion < 5%), incidence rate ≈ incidence proportion. • In cohorts (closed populations), it is best to sum individual person-time longitudinally. It can also be estimated as Σperson-time ≈ (average population size) × (duration of follow-up). Actuarial adjustments may be needed when the disease outcome is not rare. • In an open populations, Σperson-time ≈ (average population size) × (duration of follow-up). Examples of incidence rates in open populations include: births Crude birth rate (per m) = × m mid-year population size deaths Crude mortality rate (per m) = × m mid-year population size deaths < 1 year of age Infant mortality rate (per m) = × m live births No.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 3 Comparing Disease Frequencies
    © Smartboy10/DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images CHAPTER 3 Comparing Disease Frequencies LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this chapter the reader will be able to: ■ Organize disease frequency data into a two-by-two table. ■ Describe and calculate absolute and relative measures of comparison, including rate/risk difference, population rate/risk difference, attributable proportion among the exposed and the total population and rate/risk ratio. ■ Verbally interpret each absolute and relative measure of comparison. ■ Describe the purpose of standardization and calculate directly standardized rates. ▸ Introduction Measures of disease frequency are the building blocks epidemiologists use to assess the effects of a disease on a population. Comparing measures of disease frequency organizes these building blocks in a meaningful way that allows one to describe the relationship between a characteristic and a disease and to assess the public health effect of the exposure. Disease frequencies can be compared between different populations or between subgroups within a population. For example, one might be interested in comparing disease frequencies between residents of France and the United States or between subgroups within the U.S. population according to demographic characteristics, such as race, gender, or socio- economic status; personal habits, such as alcoholic beverage consump- tion or cigarette smoking; and environmental factors, such as the level of air pollution. For example, one might compare incidence rates of coronary heart disease between residents of France and those of the United States or 57 58 Chapter 3 Comparing Disease Frequencies among U.S. men and women, Blacks and Whites, alcohol drinkers and nondrinkers, and areas with high and low pollution levels.
    [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]
  • Delineating Virulence of Vibrio Campbellii
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Delineating virulence of Vibrio campbellii: a predominant luminescent bacterial pathogen in Indian shrimp hatcheries Sujeet Kumar1*, Chandra Bhushan Kumar1,2, Vidya Rajendran1, Nishawlini Abishaw1, P. S. Shyne Anand1, S. Kannapan1, Viswas K. Nagaleekar3, K. K. Vijayan1 & S. V. Alavandi1 Luminescent vibriosis is a major bacterial disease in shrimp hatcheries and causes up to 100% mortality in larval stages of penaeid shrimps. We investigated the virulence factors and genetic identity of 29 luminescent Vibrio isolates from Indian shrimp hatcheries and farms, which were earlier presumed as Vibrio harveyi. Haemolysin gene-based species-specifc multiplex PCR and phylogenetic analysis of rpoD and toxR identifed all the isolates as V. campbellii. The gene-specifc PCR revealed the presence of virulence markers involved in quorum sensing (luxM, luxS, cqsA), motility (faA, lafA), toxin (hly, chiA, serine protease, metalloprotease), and virulence regulators (toxR, luxR) in all the isolates. The deduced amino acid sequence analysis of virulence regulator ToxR suggested four variants, namely A123Q150 (AQ; 18.9%), P123Q150 (PQ; 54.1%), A123P150 (AP; 21.6%), and P123P150 (PP; 5.4% isolates) based on amino acid at 123rd (proline or alanine) and 150th (glutamine or proline) positions. A signifcantly higher level of the quorum-sensing signal, autoinducer-2 (AI-2, p = 2.2e−12), and signifcantly reduced protease activity (p = 1.6e−07) were recorded in AP variant, whereas an inverse trend was noticed in the Q150 variants AQ and PQ. The pathogenicity study in Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei juveniles revealed that all the isolates of AQ were highly pathogenic with Cox proportional hazard ratio 15.1 to 32.4 compared to P150 variants; PP (5.4 to 6.3) or AP (7.3 to 14).
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright 2009, the Johns Hopkins University and John Mcgready. All Rights Reserved
    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 2009, 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. Section F Measures of Association: Risk Difference, Relative Risk, and the Odds Ratio Risk Difference Risk difference (attributable risk)—difference in proportions - Sample (estimated) risk difference - Example: the difference in risk of HIV for children born to HIV+ mothers taking AZT relative to HIV+ mothers taking placebo 3 Risk Difference From csi command, with 95% CI 4 Risk Difference Interpretation, sample estimate - If AZT was given to 1,000 HIV infected pregnant women, this would reduce the number of HIV positive infants by 150 (relative to the number of HIV positive infants born to 1,000 women not treated with AZT) Interpretation 95% CI - Study results suggest that the reduction in HIV positive births from 1,000 HIV positive pregnant women treated with AZT could range from 75 to 220 fewer than the number occurring if the
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Epidemiologic Definations
    CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGIC DEFINATIONS 1. STUDY DESIGN Case-series: Report of a number of cases of disease. Cross-sectional study: Study design, concurrently measure outcome (disease) and risk factor. Compare proportion of diseased group with risk factor, with proportion of non-diseased group with risk factor. Case-control study: Retrospective comparison of exposures of persons with disease (cases) with those of persons without the disease (controls) (see Retrospective study). Retrospective study: Study design in which cases where individuals who had an outcome event in question are collected and analyzed after the outcomes have occurred (see also Case-control study). Cohort study: Follow-up of exposed and non-exposed defined groups, with a comparison of disease rates during the time covered. Prospective study: Study design where one or more groups (cohorts) of individuals who have not yet had the outcome event in question are monitored for the number of such events, which occur over time. Randomized controlled trial: Study design where treatments, interventions, or enrollment into different study groups are assigned by random allocation rather than by conscious decisions of clinicians or patients. If the sample size is large enough, this study design avoids problems of bias and confounding variables by assuring that both known and unknown determinants of outcome are evenly distributed between treatment and control groups. Bias (Syn: systematic error): Deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or processes leading to such deviation. See also Referral Bias, Selection Bias. Recall bias: Systematic error due to the differences in accuracy or completeness of recall to memory of past events or experiences.
    [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]