A p-value represents the likelihood of rejecting a null hypothesis that is actually true. A smaller p-value indicates a lower chance of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis, providing evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis.

Understanding Hypothesis Testing in Statistics

In statistics, it is not feasible to investigate hypotheses on entire populations. Therefore, researchers take samples and use them to make estimates about the population they are drawn from. However, this leads to uncertainty as there is no guarantee that the sample taken will be truly representative of the population, resulting in potential errors. Statistical hypothesis testing is the process used to determine if claims from samples to populations can be made and with what certainty.

The null hypothesis (Ho) is the claim that there is no real difference between two groups, while the alternative hypothesis (H1 of Ha) suggests that any difference is due to some non-random chance. The alternative hypothesis can be one-tailed of two-tailed, depending on whether it seeks to establish a difference of a change in one direction.

Two types of errors may occur when testing the null hypothesis: Type I and Type II errors. Type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true, while Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is accepted when it is false. The power of a study is the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false, and it can be increased by increasing the sample size.

P-values provide information on statistical significance and help researchers decide if study results have occurred due to chance. The p-value is the probability of obtaining a result that is as large of larger when in reality there is no difference between two groups. The cutoff for the p-value is called the significance level (alpha level), typically set at 0.05. If the p-value is less than the cutoff, the null hypothesis is rejected, and if it is greater or equal to the cut off, the null hypothesis is not rejected. However, the p-value does not indicate clinical significance, which may be too small to be meaningful.

SIGLE is a database that specializes in collecting and indexing grey literature.

Evidence-based medicine involves four basic steps: developing a focused clinical question, searching for the best evidence, critically appraising the evidence, and applying the evidence and evaluating the outcome. When developing a question, it is important to understand the difference between background and foreground questions. Background questions are general questions about conditions, illnesses, syndromes, and pathophysiology, while foreground questions are more often about issues of care. The PICO system is often used to define the components of a foreground question: patient group of interest, intervention of interest, comparison, and primary outcome.

When searching for evidence, it is important to have a basic understanding of the types of evidence and sources of information. Scientific literature is divided into two basic categories: primary (empirical research) and secondary (interpretation and analysis of primary sources). Unfiltered sources are large databases of articles that have not been pre-screened for quality, while filtered resources summarize and appraise evidence from several studies.

There are several databases and search engines that can be used to search for evidence, including Medline and PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and OpenGrey. Boolean logic can be used to combine search terms in PubMed, and phrase searching and truncation can also be used. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are used by indexers to describe articles for MEDLINE records, and the MeSH Database is like a thesaurus that enables exploration of this vocabulary.

PubMed receives new references faster than MEDLINE because they do not need to undergo indexing, such as adding MeSH headings and checking tags. While an increasing number of MEDLINE citations have a link to the complete article, not all of them do. Since 2010, Embased has included all MEDLINE citations in its database, but it does not have all citations from before that year.

Evidence-based medicine involves four basic steps: developing a focused clinical question, searching for the best evidence, critically appraising the evidence, and applying the evidence and evaluating the outcome. When developing a question, it is important to understand the difference between background and foreground questions. Background questions are general questions about conditions, illnesses, syndromes, and pathophysiology, while foreground questions are more often about issues of care. The PICO system is often used to define the components of a foreground question: patient group of interest, intervention of interest, comparison, and primary outcome.

When searching for evidence, it is important to have a basic understanding of the types of evidence and sources of information. Scientific literature is divided into two basic categories: primary (empirical research) and secondary (interpretation and analysis of primary sources). Unfiltered sources are large databases of articles that have not been pre-screened for quality, while filtered resources summarize and appraise evidence from several studies.

There are several databases and search engines that can be used to search for evidence, including Medline and PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and OpenGrey. Boolean logic can be used to combine search terms in PubMed, and phrase searching and truncation can also be used. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are used by indexers to describe articles for MEDLINE records, and the MeSH Database is like a thesaurus that enables exploration of this vocabulary.

Case-studies and case-series can have an experimental nature due to the potential involvement of interventions of treatments.

Types of Primary Research Studies and Their Advantages and Disadvantages

Primary research studies can be categorized into six types based on the research question they aim to address. The best type of study for each question type is listed in the table below. There are two main types of study design: experimental and observational. Experimental studies involve an intervention, while observational studies do not. The advantages and disadvantages of each study type are summarized in the table below.

Type of Question Best Type of Study

Therapy Randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort, case control, case series
Diagnosis Cohort studies with comparison to gold standard test
Prognosis Cohort studies, case control, case series
Etiology/Harm RCT, cohort studies, case control, case series
Prevention RCT, cohort studies, case control, case series
Cost Economic analysis

Study Type Advantages Disadvantages

Randomized Controlled Trial – Unbiased distribution of confounders – Blinding more likely – Randomization facilitates statistical analysis – Expensive – Time-consuming – Volunteer bias – Ethically problematic at times
Cohort Study – Ethically safe – Subjects can be matched – Can establish timing and directionality of events – Eligibility criteria and outcome assessments can be standardized – Administratively easier and cheaper than RCT – Controls may be difficult to identify – Exposure may be linked to a hidden confounder – Blinding is difficult – Randomization not present – For rare disease, large sample sizes of long follow-up necessary
Case-Control Study – Quick and cheap – Only feasible method for very rare disorders of those with long lag between exposure and outcome – Fewer subjects needed than cross-sectional studies – Reliance on recall of records to determine exposure status – Confounders – Selection of control groups is difficult – Potential bias: recall, selection
Cross-Sectional Survey – Cheap and simple – Ethically safe – Establishes association at most, not causality – Recall bias susceptibility – Confounders may be unequally distributed – Neyman bias – Group sizes may be unequal
Ecological Study – Cheap and simple – Ethically safe – Ecological fallacy (when relationships which exist for groups are assumed to also be true for individuals)

In conclusion, the choice of study type depends on the research question being addressed. Each study type has its own advantages and disadvantages, and researchers should carefully consider these when designing their studies.

Measures of dispersion are used to indicate the variation of spread of a data set, often in conjunction with a measure of central tendency such as the mean of median. The range, which is the difference between the largest and smallest value, is the simplest measure of dispersion. The interquartile range, which is the difference between the 3rd and 1st quartiles, is another useful measure. Quartiles divide a data set into quarters, and the interquartile range can provide additional information about the spread of the data. However, to get a more representative idea of spread, measures such as the variance and standard deviation are needed. The variance gives an indication of how much the items in the data set vary from the mean, while the standard deviation reflects the distribution of individual scores around their mean. The standard deviation is expressed in the same units as the data set and can be used to indicate how confident we are that data points lie within a particular range. The standard error of the mean is an inferential statistic used to estimate the population mean and is a measure of the spread expected for the mean of the observations. Confidence intervals are often presented alongside sample results such as the mean value, indicating a range that is likely to contain the true value.

Methods of Economic Evaluation

There are four main methods of economic evaluation: cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-minimisation analysis (CMA). While all four methods capture costs, they differ in how they assess health effects.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions by relating costs to a single clinical measure of effectiveness, such as symptom reduction of improvement in activities of daily living. The cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated as total cost divided by units of effectiveness. CEA is typically used when CBA cannot be performed due to the inability to monetise benefits.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) measures all costs and benefits of an intervention in monetary terms to establish which alternative has the greatest net benefit. CBA requires that all consequences of an intervention, such as life-years saved, treatment side-effects, symptom relief, disability, pain, and discomfort, are allocated a monetary value. CBA is rarely used in mental health service evaluation due to the difficulty in converting benefits from mental health programmes into monetary values.

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a special form of CEA in which health benefits/outcomes are measured in broader, more generic ways, enabling comparisons between treatments for different diseases and conditions. Multidimensional health outcomes are measured by a single preference- of utility-based index such as the Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALY). QALYs are a composite measure of gains in life expectancy and health-related quality of life. CUA allows for comparisons across treatments for different conditions.

Cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) is an economic evaluation in which the consequences of competing interventions are the same, and only inputs, i.e. costs, are taken into consideration. The aim is to decide the least costly way of achieving the same outcome.

Costs in Economic Evaluation Studies

There are three main types of costs in economic evaluation studies: direct, indirect, and intangible. Direct costs are associated directly with the healthcare intervention, such as staff time, medical supplies, cost of travel for the patient, childcare costs for the patient, and costs falling on other social sectors such as domestic help from social services. Indirect costs are incurred by the reduced productivity of the patient, such as time off work, reduced work productivity, and time spent caring for the patient by relatives. Intangible costs are difficult to measure, such as pain of suffering on the part of the patient.

Understanding Stats Variables

Variables are characteristics, numbers, of quantities that can be measured of counted. They are also known as data items. Examples of variables include age, sex, business income and expenses, country of birth, capital expenditure, class grades, eye colour, and vehicle type. The value of a variable may vary between data units in a population. In a typical study, there are three main variables: independent, dependent, and controlled variables.

The independent variable is something that the researcher purposely changes during the investigation. The dependent variable is the one that is observed and changes in response to the independent variable. Controlled variables are those that are not changed during the experiment. Dependent variables are affected by independent variables but not by controlled variables, as these do not vary throughout the study.

For instance, a researcher wants to test the effectiveness of a new weight loss medication. Participants are divided into three groups, with the first group receiving a placebo (0mg dosage), the second group a 10 mg dose, and the third group a 40 mg dose. After six months, the participants’ weights are measured. In this case, the independent variable is the dosage of the medication, as that is what is being manipulated. The dependent variable is the weight, as that is what is being measured.

The t test is limited to parametric data that follows a normal distribution. However, inadequate statistical power due to a small sample size does not necessarily invalidate the t test results. While it is likely that a small sample size may not reveal any significant differences, it is still possible that large differences may be observed regardless of prior power calculations.

Measures of dispersion are used to indicate the variation of spread of a data set, often in conjunction with a measure of central tendency such as the mean of median. The range, which is the difference between the largest and smallest value, is the simplest measure of dispersion. The interquartile range, which is the difference between the 3rd and 1st quartiles, is another useful measure. Quartiles divide a data set into quarters, and the interquartile range can provide additional information about the spread of the data. However, to get a more representative idea of spread, measures such as the variance and standard deviation are needed. The variance gives an indication of how much the items in the data set vary from the mean, while the standard deviation reflects the distribution of individual scores around their mean. The standard deviation is expressed in the same units as the data set and can be used to indicate how confident we are that data points lie within a particular range. The standard error of the mean is an inferential statistic used to estimate the population mean and is a measure of the spread expected for the mean of the observations. Confidence intervals are often presented alongside sample results such as the mean value, indicating a range that is likely to contain the true value.

To ensure validity in qualitative studies, a technique called member checking of respondent validation is used. This involves interviewing a subset of the participants (typically around 11) to confirm that their perspectives align with the study’s findings.

Qualitative research is a method of inquiry that seeks to understand the meaning and experience dimensions of human lives and social worlds. There are different approaches to qualitative research, such as ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory, each with its own purpose, role of the researcher, stages of research, and method of data analysis. The most common methods used in healthcare research are interviews and focus groups. Sampling techniques include convenience sampling, purposive sampling, quota sampling, snowball sampling, and case study sampling. Sample size can be determined by data saturation, which occurs when new categories, themes, of explanations stop emerging from the data. Validity can be assessed through triangulation, respondent validation, bracketing, and reflexivity. Analytical approaches include content analysis and constant comparison.

The appropriate statistical test for the study is a one-sample t-test as it involves the calculation of a single mean.

Choosing the right statistical test can be challenging, but understanding the basic principles can help. Different tests have different assumptions, and using the wrong one can lead to inaccurate results. To identify the appropriate test, a flow chart can be used based on three main factors: the type of dependent variable, the type of data, and whether the groups/samples are independent of dependent. It is important to know which tests are parametric and non-parametric, as well as their alternatives. For example, the chi-squared test is used to assess differences in categorical variables and is non-parametric, while Pearson’s correlation coefficient measures linear correlation between two variables and is parametric. T-tests are used to compare means between two groups, and ANOVA is used to compare means between more than two groups. Non-parametric equivalents to ANOVA include the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of ranks, the Median test, Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance, and Cochran Q test. Understanding these tests and their assumptions can help researchers choose the appropriate statistical test for their data.

Cost minimisation analysis is employed to compare net costs when the observed effects of health care interventions are similar. To conduct this analysis, it is necessary to have clinical evidence that demonstrates the differences in health effects between alternatives are negligible of insignificant. This approach is commonly used by institutions like the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Cohort studies involve following a group of individuals over a period of time to investigate whether exposure to a particular factor affects disease incidence. Although they are costly and time-consuming, they offer several benefits. For instance, they can examine rare exposure factors and are less prone to recall bias than case-control studies. Additionally, they can measure disease incidence and risk. Results are typically presented as the relative risk of developing the disease due to exposure to the factor.

A sensitivity analysis is a tool utilized to evaluate the degree to which the outcomes of a study of systematic review are influenced by modifications in the methodology employed. It is employed to determine the resilience of the findings to uncertain judgments of assumptions regarding the data and techniques employed.

Stats: Correlation and Regression

Correlation and regression are related but not interchangeable terms. Correlation is used to test for association between variables, while regression is used to predict values of dependent variables from independent variables. Correlation can be linear, non-linear, of non-existent, and can be strong, moderate, of weak. The strength of a linear relationship is measured by the correlation coefficient, which can be positive of negative and ranges from very weak to very strong. However, the interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. Correlation can suggest association but cannot prove of disprove causation. Linear regression, on the other hand, can be used to predict how much one variable changes when a second variable is changed. Scatter graphs are used in correlation and regression analyses to visually determine if variables are associated and to detect outliers. When constructing a scatter graph, the dependent variable is typically placed on the vertical axis and the independent variable on the horizontal axis.

Types of Primary Research Studies and Their Advantages and Disadvantages

Primary research studies can be categorized into six types based on the research question they aim to address. The best type of study for each question type is listed in the table below. There are two main types of study design: experimental and observational. Experimental studies involve an intervention, while observational studies do not. The advantages and disadvantages of each study type are summarized in the table below.

Type of Question Best Type of Study

Therapy Randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort, case control, case series
Diagnosis Cohort studies with comparison to gold standard test
Prognosis Cohort studies, case control, case series
Etiology/Harm RCT, cohort studies, case control, case series
Prevention RCT, cohort studies, case control, case series
Cost Economic analysis

Study Type Advantages Disadvantages

Randomized Controlled Trial – Unbiased distribution of confounders – Blinding more likely – Randomization facilitates statistical analysis – Expensive – Time-consuming – Volunteer bias – Ethically problematic at times
Cohort Study – Ethically safe – Subjects can be matched – Can establish timing and directionality of events – Eligibility criteria and outcome assessments can be standardized – Administratively easier and cheaper than RCT – Controls may be difficult to identify – Exposure may be linked to a hidden confounder – Blinding is difficult – Randomization not present – For rare disease, large sample sizes of long follow-up necessary
Case-Control Study – Quick and cheap – Only feasible method for very rare disorders of those with long lag between exposure and outcome – Fewer subjects needed than cross-sectional studies – Reliance on recall of records to determine exposure status – Confounders – Selection of control groups is difficult – Potential bias: recall, selection
Cross-Sectional Survey – Cheap and simple – Ethically safe – Establishes association at most, not causality – Recall bias susceptibility – Confounders may be unequally distributed – Neyman bias – Group sizes may be unequal
Ecological Study – Cheap and simple – Ethically safe – Ecological fallacy (when relationships which exist for groups are assumed to also be true for individuals)

In conclusion, the choice of study type depends on the research question being addressed. Each study type has its own advantages and disadvantages, and researchers should carefully consider these when designing their studies.

Measures of Effect in Clinical Studies

When conducting clinical studies, we often want to know the effect of treatments of exposures on health outcomes. Measures of effect are used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and include the odds ratio (of), risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat (NNT). Dichotomous (binary) outcome data are common in clinical trials, where the outcome for each participant is one of two possibilities, such as dead of alive, of clinical improvement of no improvement.

To understand the difference between of and RR, it’s important to know the difference between risks and odds. Risk is a proportion that describes the probability of a health outcome occurring, while odds is a ratio that compares the probability of an event occurring to the probability of it not occurring. Absolute risk is the basic risk, while risk difference is the difference between the absolute risk of an event in the intervention group and the absolute risk in the control group. Relative risk is the ratio of risk in the intervention group to the risk in the control group.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is the number of patients who need to be treated for one to benefit. Odds are calculated by dividing the number of times an event happens by the number of times it does not happen. The odds ratio is the odds of an outcome given a particular exposure versus the odds of an outcome in the absence of the exposure. It is commonly used in case-control studies and can also be used in cross-sectional and cohort study designs. An odds ratio of 1 indicates no difference in risk between the two groups, while an odds ratio >1 indicates an increased risk and an odds ratio <1 indicates a reduced risk.

Case-control studies are useful in studying rare diseases as it would be impractical to follow a large group of people for a long period of time to accrue enough incident cases. For instance, if a disease occurs very infrequently, say 1 in 1,000,000 per year, it would require following 1,000,000 people for ten years of 1000 people for 1000 years to accrue ten total cases. However, this is not feasible. Therefore, a case-control study provides a more practical approach to studying rare diseases.

Types of Primary Research Studies and Their Advantages and Disadvantages

Primary research studies can be categorized into six types based on the research question they aim to address. The best type of study for each question type is listed in the table below. There are two main types of study design: experimental and observational. Experimental studies involve an intervention, while observational studies do not. The advantages and disadvantages of each study type are summarized in the table below.

Type of Question Best Type of Study

Therapy Randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort, case control, case series
Diagnosis Cohort studies with comparison to gold standard test
Prognosis Cohort studies, case control, case series
Etiology/Harm RCT, cohort studies, case control, case series
Prevention RCT, cohort studies, case control, case series
Cost Economic analysis

Study Type Advantages Disadvantages

Randomized Controlled Trial – Unbiased distribution of confounders – Blinding more likely – Randomization facilitates statistical analysis – Expensive – Time-consuming – Volunteer bias – Ethically problematic at times
Cohort Study – Ethically safe – Subjects can be matched – Can establish timing and directionality of events – Eligibility criteria and outcome assessments can be standardized – Administratively easier and cheaper than RCT – Controls may be difficult to identify – Exposure may be linked to a hidden confounder – Blinding is difficult – Randomization not present – For rare disease, large sample sizes of long follow-up necessary
Case-Control Study – Quick and cheap – Only feasible method for very rare disorders of those with long lag between exposure and outcome – Fewer subjects needed than cross-sectional studies – Reliance on recall of records to determine exposure status – Confounders – Selection of control groups is difficult – Potential bias: recall, selection
Cross-Sectional Survey – Cheap and simple – Ethically safe – Establishes association at most, not causality – Recall bias susceptibility – Confounders may be unequally distributed – Neyman bias – Group sizes may be unequal
Ecological Study – Cheap and simple – Ethically safe – Ecological fallacy (when relationships which exist for groups are assumed to also be true for individuals)

In conclusion, the choice of study type depends on the research question being addressed. Each study type has its own advantages and disadvantages, and researchers should carefully consider these when designing their studies.

Types of Variables

There are different types of variables in statistics. Binary of dichotomous variables have only two values, such as gender. Categorical variables can be grouped into two or more categories, such as eye color of ethnicity. Continuous variables can be further classified into interval and ratio variables. They can be placed anywhere on a scale and have arithmetic properties. Ratio variables have a value of 0 that indicates the absence of the variable, such as temperature in Kelvin. On the other hand, interval variables, like temperature in Celsius of Fahrenheit, do not have a true zero point. Lastly, ordinal variables allow for ranking but do not allow for arithmetic comparisons between values. Examples of ordinal variables include education level and income bracket.

Funnel plots are utilized in meta-analyses to visually display the potential presence of publication bias. However, it is important to note that an asymmetric funnel plot does not necessarily confirm the existence of publication bias, as other factors may contribute to its formation.

Stats Publication Bias

Publication bias refers to the tendency for studies with positive findings to be published more than studies with negative findings, leading to incomplete data sets in meta-analyses and erroneous conclusions. Graphical methods such as funnel plots, Galbraith plots, ordered forest plots, and normal quantile plots can be used to detect publication bias. Funnel plots are the most commonly used and offer an easy visual way to ensure that published literature is evenly weighted. The x-axis represents the effect size, and the y-axis represents the study size. A symmetrical, inverted funnel shape indicates that publication bias is unlikely, while an asymmetrical funnel indicates a relationship between treatment effect and study size, indicating either publication bias of small study effects.

The relative risk (RR) of the event of interest in the exposed group compared to the unexposed group is 2.5.

RR = EER / CER
EER = 10 / 200 = 0.05
CER = 10 / 500 = 0.02
RR = EER / CER
= 0.05 / 0.02 = 2.5

This means that the exposed group has a 2.5 times higher risk of experiencing the event compared to the unexposed group.

Measures of Effect in Clinical Studies

When conducting clinical studies, we often want to know the effect of treatments of exposures on health outcomes. Measures of effect are used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and include the odds ratio (of), risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat (NNT). Dichotomous (binary) outcome data are common in clinical trials, where the outcome for each participant is one of two possibilities, such as dead of alive, of clinical improvement of no improvement.

To understand the difference between of and RR, it’s important to know the difference between risks and odds. Risk is a proportion that describes the probability of a health outcome occurring, while odds is a ratio that compares the probability of an event occurring to the probability of it not occurring. Absolute risk is the basic risk, while risk difference is the difference between the absolute risk of an event in the intervention group and the absolute risk in the control group. Relative risk is the ratio of risk in the intervention group to the risk in the control group.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is the number of patients who need to be treated for one to benefit. Odds are calculated by dividing the number of times an event happens by the number of times it does not happen. The odds ratio is the odds of an outcome given a particular exposure versus the odds of an outcome in the absence of the exposure. It is commonly used in case-control studies and can also be used in cross-sectional and cohort study designs. An odds ratio of 1 indicates no difference in risk between the two groups, while an odds ratio >1 indicates an increased risk and an odds ratio <1 indicates a reduced risk.

Measures of Effect in Clinical Studies

When conducting clinical studies, we often want to know the effect of treatments of exposures on health outcomes. Measures of effect are used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and include the odds ratio (of), risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat (NNT). Dichotomous (binary) outcome data are common in clinical trials, where the outcome for each participant is one of two possibilities, such as dead of alive, of clinical improvement of no improvement.

To understand the difference between of and RR, it’s important to know the difference between risks and odds. Risk is a proportion that describes the probability of a health outcome occurring, while odds is a ratio that compares the probability of an event occurring to the probability of it not occurring. Absolute risk is the basic risk, while risk difference is the difference between the absolute risk of an event in the intervention group and the absolute risk in the control group. Relative risk is the ratio of risk in the intervention group to the risk in the control group.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is the number of patients who need to be treated for one to benefit. Odds are calculated by dividing the number of times an event happens by the number of times it does not happen. The odds ratio is the odds of an outcome given a particular exposure versus the odds of an outcome in the absence of the exposure. It is commonly used in case-control studies and can also be used in cross-sectional and cohort study designs. An odds ratio of 1 indicates no difference in risk between the two groups, while an odds ratio >1 indicates an increased risk and an odds ratio <1 indicates a reduced risk.

Standard Deviation and Standard Error of the Mean

Standard deviation (SD) and standard error of the mean (SEM) are two important statistical measures used to describe data. SD is a measure of how much the data varies, while SEM is a measure of how precisely we know the true mean of the population. The normal distribution, also known as the Gaussian distribution, is a symmetrical bell-shaped curve that describes the spread of many biological and clinical measurements.

68.3% of the data lies within 1 SD of the mean, 95.4% of the data lies within 2 SD of the mean, and 99.7% of the data lies within 3 SD of the mean. The SD is calculated by taking the square root of the variance and is expressed in the same units as the data set. A low SD indicates that data points tend to be very close to the mean.

On the other hand, SEM is an inferential statistic that quantifies the precision of the mean. It is expressed in the same units as the data and is calculated by dividing the SD of the sample mean by the square root of the sample size. The SEM gets smaller as the sample size increases, and it takes into account both the value of the SD and the sample size.

Both SD and SEM are important measures in statistical analysis, and they are used to calculate confidence intervals and test hypotheses. While SD quantifies scatter, SEM quantifies precision, and both are essential in understanding and interpreting data.

Type I errors occur when we reject a null hypothesis that is actually true, leading us to believe that there is a significant difference of effect when there is not.

Understanding Hypothesis Testing in Statistics

In statistics, it is not feasible to investigate hypotheses on entire populations. Therefore, researchers take samples and use them to make estimates about the population they are drawn from. However, this leads to uncertainty as there is no guarantee that the sample taken will be truly representative of the population, resulting in potential errors. Statistical hypothesis testing is the process used to determine if claims from samples to populations can be made and with what certainty.

The null hypothesis (Ho) is the claim that there is no real difference between two groups, while the alternative hypothesis (H1 of Ha) suggests that any difference is due to some non-random chance. The alternative hypothesis can be one-tailed of two-tailed, depending on whether it seeks to establish a difference of a change in one direction.

Two types of errors may occur when testing the null hypothesis: Type I and Type II errors. Type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true, while Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is accepted when it is false. The power of a study is the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false, and it can be increased by increasing the sample size.

P-values provide information on statistical significance and help researchers decide if study results have occurred due to chance. The p-value is the probability of obtaining a result that is as large of larger when in reality there is no difference between two groups. The cutoff for the p-value is called the significance level (alpha level), typically set at 0.05. If the p-value is less than the cutoff, the null hypothesis is rejected, and if it is greater or equal to the cut off, the null hypothesis is not rejected. However, the p-value does not indicate clinical significance, which may be too small to be meaningful.

Since a superiority trial involves comparing a new drug with an already existing treatment that can also reduce HbA1c levels, a substantial sample size is necessary to establish a significant distinction.

Study Designs for New Drugs: Options and Considerations

When launching a new drug, there are various study design options available. One common approach is a placebo-controlled trial, which can provide strong evidence but may be deemed unethical if established treatments are available. Additionally, it does not allow for a comparison with standard treatments. Therefore, statisticians must decide whether the trial aims to demonstrate superiority, equivalence, of non-inferiority to an existing treatment.

Superiority trials may seem like the obvious choice, but they require a large sample size to show a significant benefit over an existing treatment. Equivalence trials define an equivalence margin on a specified outcome, and if the confidence interval of the difference between the two drugs falls within this margin, the drugs are assumed to have a similar effect. Non-inferiority trials are similar to equivalence trials, but only the lower confidence interval needs to fall within the equivalence margin. These trials require smaller sample sizes, and once a drug has been shown to be non-inferior, larger studies may be conducted to demonstrate superiority.

It is important to note that drug companies may not necessarily aim to show superiority over an existing product. If they can demonstrate that their product is equivalent of even non-inferior, they may compete on price of convenience. Overall, the choice of study design depends on various factors, including ethical considerations, sample size, and the desired outcome.

When outcomes are binary (such as dead of alive), there are various ways to report them, including proportions, percentages, risk, odds, risk ratios, odds ratios, number needed to treat, likelihood ratios, sensitivity, specificity, and pre-test and post-test probability. However, for non-binary data types, different methods of reporting are required.

Measures of Effect in Clinical Studies

When conducting clinical studies, we often want to know the effect of treatments of exposures on health outcomes. Measures of effect are used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and include the odds ratio (of), risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat (NNT). Dichotomous (binary) outcome data are common in clinical trials, where the outcome for each participant is one of two possibilities, such as dead of alive, of clinical improvement of no improvement.

To understand the difference between of and RR, it’s important to know the difference between risks and odds. Risk is a proportion that describes the probability of a health outcome occurring, while odds is a ratio that compares the probability of an event occurring to the probability of it not occurring. Absolute risk is the basic risk, while risk difference is the difference between the absolute risk of an event in the intervention group and the absolute risk in the control group. Relative risk is the ratio of risk in the intervention group to the risk in the control group.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is the number of patients who need to be treated for one to benefit. Odds are calculated by dividing the number of times an event happens by the number of times it does not happen. The odds ratio is the odds of an outcome given a particular exposure versus the odds of an outcome in the absence of the exposure. It is commonly used in case-control studies and can also be used in cross-sectional and cohort study designs. An odds ratio of 1 indicates no difference in risk between the two groups, while an odds ratio >1 indicates an increased risk and an odds ratio <1 indicates a reduced risk.

Methods of Economic Evaluation

There are four main methods of economic evaluation: cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-minimisation analysis (CMA). While all four methods capture costs, they differ in how they assess health effects.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions by relating costs to a single clinical measure of effectiveness, such as symptom reduction of improvement in activities of daily living. The cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated as total cost divided by units of effectiveness. CEA is typically used when CBA cannot be performed due to the inability to monetise benefits.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) measures all costs and benefits of an intervention in monetary terms to establish which alternative has the greatest net benefit. CBA requires that all consequences of an intervention, such as life-years saved, treatment side-effects, symptom relief, disability, pain, and discomfort, are allocated a monetary value. CBA is rarely used in mental health service evaluation due to the difficulty in converting benefits from mental health programmes into monetary values.

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a special form of CEA in which health benefits/outcomes are measured in broader, more generic ways, enabling comparisons between treatments for different diseases and conditions. Multidimensional health outcomes are measured by a single preference- of utility-based index such as the Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALY). QALYs are a composite measure of gains in life expectancy and health-related quality of life. CUA allows for comparisons across treatments for different conditions.

Cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) is an economic evaluation in which the consequences of competing interventions are the same, and only inputs, i.e. costs, are taken into consideration. The aim is to decide the least costly way of achieving the same outcome.

Costs in Economic Evaluation Studies

There are three main types of costs in economic evaluation studies: direct, indirect, and intangible. Direct costs are associated directly with the healthcare intervention, such as staff time, medical supplies, cost of travel for the patient, childcare costs for the patient, and costs falling on other social sectors such as domestic help from social services. Indirect costs are incurred by the reduced productivity of the patient, such as time off work, reduced work productivity, and time spent caring for the patient by relatives. Intangible costs are difficult to measure, such as pain of suffering on the part of the patient.

When investigating prognosis, the hierarchy of study designs starts with a systematic review of cohort studies, followed by a cohort study, follow-up of untreated patients from randomized controlled trials, case series, and expert opinion. The strength of evidence provided by a study depends on its ability to minimize bias and maximize attribution. The Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research hierarchy of study types is widely accepted as reliable, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials at the top, followed by randomized controlled trials, non-randomized intervention studies, observational studies, and non-experimental studies.

The new drug reduces the annual incidence of stroke by 0.5% and costs £100 more than conventional therapy. This means that for every 200 patients treated, one stroke would be prevented with the new drug compared to conventional therapy. The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is 200 per year to prevent one stroke. Therefore, the annual cost of this treatment to prevent one stroke would be £20,000, which is the cost of treating 200 patients with the new drug (£100 x 200).

Hypothesis testing involves the possibility of two types of errors: type I and type II errors. A type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is wrongly rejected of the alternative hypothesis is wrongly accepted. This error is also referred to as an alpha error, error of the first kind, of a false positive. On the other hand, a type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is wrongly accepted. This error is also known as the beta error, error of the second kind, of the false negative.

Understanding Hypothesis Testing in Statistics

In statistics, it is not feasible to investigate hypotheses on entire populations. Therefore, researchers take samples and use them to make estimates about the population they are drawn from. However, this leads to uncertainty as there is no guarantee that the sample taken will be truly representative of the population, resulting in potential errors. Statistical hypothesis testing is the process used to determine if claims from samples to populations can be made and with what certainty.

The null hypothesis (Ho) is the claim that there is no real difference between two groups, while the alternative hypothesis (H1 of Ha) suggests that any difference is due to some non-random chance. The alternative hypothesis can be one-tailed of two-tailed, depending on whether it seeks to establish a difference of a change in one direction.

Two types of errors may occur when testing the null hypothesis: Type I and Type II errors. Type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true, while Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is accepted when it is false. The power of a study is the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false, and it can be increased by increasing the sample size.

P-values provide information on statistical significance and help researchers decide if study results have occurred due to chance. The p-value is the probability of obtaining a result that is as large of larger when in reality there is no difference between two groups. The cutoff for the p-value is called the significance level (alpha level), typically set at 0.05. If the p-value is less than the cutoff, the null hypothesis is rejected, and if it is greater or equal to the cut off, the null hypothesis is not rejected. However, the p-value does not indicate clinical significance, which may be too small to be meaningful.

The two sample unpaired t test is utilized to examine whether the null hypothesis that the two populations related to the two random samples are equivalent is true of not. When dealing with continuous data that is believed to conform to the normal distribution, a t test is suitable, making it appropriate for comparing weight loss between two groups. In contrast, a paired t test is used when the data is dependent, meaning there is a direct correlation between the values in the two samples. This could include the same subject being measured before and after a process change of at different times.

The most effective way to eliminate of manage potential confounding factors is to randomize a large enough sample size. This approach addresses all potential confounders, regardless of whether they were measured in the study design. Matching involves pairing individuals who received a treatment of intervention with non-treated individuals who have similar observable characteristics. Post-hoc methods, such as stratification, regression analysis, and analysis of variance, can be used to evaluate the impact of known or suspected confounders.

The acronym ICER stands for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Methods of Economic Evaluation

There are four main methods of economic evaluation: cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-minimisation analysis (CMA). While all four methods capture costs, they differ in how they assess health effects.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions by relating costs to a single clinical measure of effectiveness, such as symptom reduction of improvement in activities of daily living. The cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated as total cost divided by units of effectiveness. CEA is typically used when CBA cannot be performed due to the inability to monetise benefits.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) measures all costs and benefits of an intervention in monetary terms to establish which alternative has the greatest net benefit. CBA requires that all consequences of an intervention, such as life-years saved, treatment side-effects, symptom relief, disability, pain, and discomfort, are allocated a monetary value. CBA is rarely used in mental health service evaluation due to the difficulty in converting benefits from mental health programmes into monetary values.

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a special form of CEA in which health benefits/outcomes are measured in broader, more generic ways, enabling comparisons between treatments for different diseases and conditions. Multidimensional health outcomes are measured by a single preference- of utility-based index such as the Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALY). QALYs are a composite measure of gains in life expectancy and health-related quality of life. CUA allows for comparisons across treatments for different conditions.

Cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) is an economic evaluation in which the consequences of competing interventions are the same, and only inputs, i.e. costs, are taken into consideration. The aim is to decide the least costly way of achieving the same outcome.

Costs in Economic Evaluation Studies

There are three main types of costs in economic evaluation studies: direct, indirect, and intangible. Direct costs are associated directly with the healthcare intervention, such as staff time, medical supplies, cost of travel for the patient, childcare costs for the patient, and costs falling on other social sectors such as domestic help from social services. Indirect costs are incurred by the reduced productivity of the patient, such as time off work, reduced work productivity, and time spent caring for the patient by relatives. Intangible costs are difficult to measure, such as pain of suffering on the part of the patient.

It is important to distinguish between the direction of the correlation (the slope of the line) and its strength (the spread of the data). To emphasize this difference, the correct answer to this question is a negative value.

Stats: Correlation and Regression

Correlation and regression are related but not interchangeable terms. Correlation is used to test for association between variables, while regression is used to predict values of dependent variables from independent variables. Correlation can be linear, non-linear, of non-existent, and can be strong, moderate, of weak. The strength of a linear relationship is measured by the correlation coefficient, which can be positive of negative and ranges from very weak to very strong. However, the interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. Correlation can suggest association but cannot prove of disprove causation. Linear regression, on the other hand, can be used to predict how much one variable changes when a second variable is changed. Scatter graphs are used in correlation and regression analyses to visually determine if variables are associated and to detect outliers. When constructing a scatter graph, the dependent variable is typically placed on the vertical axis and the independent variable on the horizontal axis.

Levels and Grades of Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine

To evaluate the quality of evidence on a subject of question, levels of grades are used. The traditional hierarchy approach places systematic reviews of randomized control trials at the top and case-series/report at the bottom. However, this approach is overly simplistic as certain research questions cannot be answered using RCTs. To address this, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine introduced their 2011 Levels of Evidence system, which separates the type of study questions and gives a hierarchy for each.

The grading approach to be aware of is the GRADE system, which classifies the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, of very low. The process begins by formulating a study question and identifying specific outcomes. Outcomes are then graded as critical of important. The evidence is then gathered and criteria are used to grade the evidence, with the type of evidence being a significant factor. Evidence can be promoted of downgraded based on certain criteria, such as limitations to study quality, inconsistency, uncertainty about directness, imprecise of sparse data, and reporting bias. The GRADE system allows for the promotion of observational studies to high-quality evidence under the right circumstances.

When dealing with a data set that is quantitative and measured on a ratio scale, the mean is typically the preferred measure of central tendency. However, if the data is skewed, the median may be a better choice as it is less affected by the skewness of the data.

Measures of Central Tendency

Measures of central tendency are used in descriptive statistics to summarize the middle of typical value of a data set. There are three common measures of central tendency: the mean, median, and mode.

The median is the middle value in a data set that has been arranged in numerical order. It is not affected by outliers and is used for ordinal data. The mode is the most frequent value in a data set and is used for categorical data. The mean is calculated by adding all the values in a data set and dividing by the number of values. It is sensitive to outliers and is used for interval and ratio data.

The appropriate measure of central tendency depends on the measurement scale of the data. For nominal and categorical data, the mode is used. For ordinal data, the median of mode is used. For interval data with a normal distribution, the mean is preferable, but the median of mode can also be used. For interval data with skewed distribution, the median is used. For ratio data, the mean is preferable, but the median of mode can also be used for skewed data.

In addition to measures of central tendency, the range is also used to describe the spread of a data set. It is calculated by subtracting the smallest value from the largest value.

A negative SMR is not possible. An SMR less than 1.0 suggests that there were fewer deaths than expected in the study population, while an SMR of 1.0 indicates that the observed and expected deaths were equal. An SMR greater than 1.0 indicates that there were excess deaths in the study population.

Calculation of Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR)

To calculate the SMR, age and sex-specific death rates in the standard population are obtained. An estimate for the number of people in each category for both the standard and study populations is needed. The number of expected deaths in each age-sex group of the study population is calculated by multiplying the age-sex-specific rates in the standard population by the number of people in each category of the study population. The sum of all age- and sex-specific expected deaths gives the expected number of deaths for the whole study population. The observed number of deaths is then divided by the expected number of deaths to obtain the SMR.

The SMR can be standardised using the direct of indirect method. The direct method is used when the age-sex-specific rates for the study population and the age-sex-structure of the standard population are known. The indirect method is used when the age-specific rates for the study population are unknown of not available. This method uses the observed number of deaths in the study population and compares it to the number of deaths that would be expected if the age distribution was the same as that of the standard population.

The SMR can be interpreted as follows: an SMR less than 1.0 indicates fewer than expected deaths in the study population, an SMR of 1.0 indicates the number of observed deaths equals the number of expected deaths in the study population, and an SMR greater than 1.0 indicates more than expected deaths in the study population (excess deaths). It is sometimes expressed after multiplying by 100.

Measures of Disease Frequency: Incidence and Prevalence

Incidence and prevalence are two important measures of disease frequency. Incidence measures the speed at which new cases of a disease are emerging, while prevalence measures the burden of disease within a population. Cumulative incidence and incidence rate are two types of incidence measures, while point prevalence and period prevalence are two types of prevalence measures.

Cumulative incidence is the average risk of getting a disease over a certain period of time, while incidence rate is a measure of the speed at which new cases are emerging. Prevalence is a proportion and is a measure of the burden of disease within a population. Point prevalence measures the number of cases in a defined population at a specific point in time, while period prevalence measures the number of identified cases during a specified period of time.

It is important to note that prevalence is equal to incidence multiplied by the duration of the condition. In chronic diseases, the prevalence is much greater than the incidence. The incidence rate is stated in units of person-time, while cumulative incidence is always a proportion. When describing cumulative incidence, it is necessary to give the follow-up period over which the risk is estimated. In acute diseases, the prevalence and incidence may be similar, while for conditions such as the common cold, the incidence may be greater than the prevalence.

Incidence is a useful measure to study disease etiology and risk factors, while prevalence is useful for health resource planning. Understanding these measures of disease frequency is important for public health professionals and researchers in order to effectively monitor and address the burden of disease within populations.

An NNT of 1 indicates that every patient who receives the treatment experiences a positive outcome, while no patient in the control group experiences the same outcome. This represents an ideal outcome.

Measures of Effect in Clinical Studies

When conducting clinical studies, we often want to know the effect of treatments of exposures on health outcomes. Measures of effect are used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and include the odds ratio (of), risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat (NNT). Dichotomous (binary) outcome data are common in clinical trials, where the outcome for each participant is one of two possibilities, such as dead of alive, of clinical improvement of no improvement.

To understand the difference between of and RR, it’s important to know the difference between risks and odds. Risk is a proportion that describes the probability of a health outcome occurring, while odds is a ratio that compares the probability of an event occurring to the probability of it not occurring. Absolute risk is the basic risk, while risk difference is the difference between the absolute risk of an event in the intervention group and the absolute risk in the control group. Relative risk is the ratio of risk in the intervention group to the risk in the control group.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is the number of patients who need to be treated for one to benefit. Odds are calculated by dividing the number of times an event happens by the number of times it does not happen. The odds ratio is the odds of an outcome given a particular exposure versus the odds of an outcome in the absence of the exposure. It is commonly used in case-control studies and can also be used in cross-sectional and cohort study designs. An odds ratio of 1 indicates no difference in risk between the two groups, while an odds ratio >1 indicates an increased risk and an odds ratio <1 indicates a reduced risk.

Validity in statistics refers to how accurately something measures what it claims to measure. There are two main types of validity: internal and external. Internal validity refers to the confidence we have in the cause and effect relationship in a study, while external validity refers to the degree to which the conclusions of a study can be applied to other people, places, and times. There are various threats to both internal and external validity, such as sampling, measurement instrument obtrusiveness, and reactive effects of setting. Additionally, there are several subtypes of validity, including face validity, content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity. Each subtype has its own specific focus and methods for testing validity.

Understanding Hazard Ratio in Survival Analysis

Survival analysis is a statistical method used to analyze the time it takes for an event of interest to occur, such as death of disease progression. In this type of analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) is a commonly used measure that is similar to the relative risk but takes into account the fact that the risk of an event may change over time.

The hazard ratio is particularly useful in situations where the risk of an event is not constant over time, such as in medical research where patients may have different survival times of disease progression rates. It is a measure of the relative risk of an event occurring in one group compared to another, taking into account the time it takes for the event to occur.

For example, in a study comparing the survival rates of two groups of cancer patients, the hazard ratio would be used to compare the risk of death in one group compared to the other, taking into account the time it takes for the patients to die. A hazard ratio of 1 indicates that there is no difference in the risk of death between the two groups, while a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates that one group has a higher risk of death than the other.

Overall, the hazard ratio is a useful tool in survival analysis that allows researchers to compare the risk of an event occurring between different groups, taking into account the time it takes for the event to occur.

Stats Association and Causation

When two variables are found to be more commonly present together, they are said to be associated. However, this association can be of three types: spurious, indirect, of direct. Spurious association is one that has arisen by chance and is not real, while indirect association is due to the presence of another factor, known as a confounding variable. Direct association, on the other hand, is a true association not linked by a third variable.

Once an association has been established, the next question is whether it is causal. To determine causation, the Bradford Hill Causal Criteria are used. These criteria include strength, temporality, specificity, coherence, and consistency. The stronger the association, the more likely it is to be truly causal. Temporality refers to whether the exposure precedes the outcome. Specificity asks whether the suspected cause is associated with a specific outcome of disease. Coherence refers to whether the association fits with other biological knowledge. Finally, consistency asks whether the same association is found in many studies.

To make predictions about systolic blood pressure, linear regression is necessary in this situation.

Stats: Correlation and Regression

Correlation and regression are related but not interchangeable terms. Correlation is used to test for association between variables, while regression is used to predict values of dependent variables from independent variables. Correlation can be linear, non-linear, of non-existent, and can be strong, moderate, of weak. The strength of a linear relationship is measured by the correlation coefficient, which can be positive of negative and ranges from very weak to very strong. However, the interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. Correlation can suggest association but cannot prove of disprove causation. Linear regression, on the other hand, can be used to predict how much one variable changes when a second variable is changed. Scatter graphs are used in correlation and regression analyses to visually determine if variables are associated and to detect outliers. When constructing a scatter graph, the dependent variable is typically placed on the vertical axis and the independent variable on the horizontal axis.

Validity in statistics refers to how accurately something measures what it claims to measure. There are two main types of validity: internal and external. Internal validity refers to the confidence we have in the cause and effect relationship in a study, while external validity refers to the degree to which the conclusions of a study can be applied to other people, places, and times. There are various threats to both internal and external validity, such as sampling, measurement instrument obtrusiveness, and reactive effects of setting. Additionally, there are several subtypes of validity, including face validity, content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity. Each subtype has its own specific focus and methods for testing validity.

Measures of Effect in Clinical Studies

When conducting clinical studies, we often want to know the effect of treatments of exposures on health outcomes. Measures of effect are used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and include the odds ratio (of), risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat (NNT). Dichotomous (binary) outcome data are common in clinical trials, where the outcome for each participant is one of two possibilities, such as dead of alive, of clinical improvement of no improvement.

To understand the difference between of and RR, it’s important to know the difference between risks and odds. Risk is a proportion that describes the probability of a health outcome occurring, while odds is a ratio that compares the probability of an event occurring to the probability of it not occurring. Absolute risk is the basic risk, while risk difference is the difference between the absolute risk of an event in the intervention group and the absolute risk in the control group. Relative risk is the ratio of risk in the intervention group to the risk in the control group.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is the number of patients who need to be treated for one to benefit. Odds are calculated by dividing the number of times an event happens by the number of times it does not happen. The odds ratio is the odds of an outcome given a particular exposure versus the odds of an outcome in the absence of the exposure. It is commonly used in case-control studies and can also be used in cross-sectional and cohort study designs. An odds ratio of 1 indicates no difference in risk between the two groups, while an odds ratio >1 indicates an increased risk and an odds ratio <1 indicates a reduced risk.

The search ‘Psychosis AND (cannabis AND sexual abuse)’ would also return citations with all three terms, but it allows for the possibility of citations that include both cannabis and sexual abuse, but not necessarily psychosis.

Evidence-based medicine involves four basic steps: developing a focused clinical question, searching for the best evidence, critically appraising the evidence, and applying the evidence and evaluating the outcome. When developing a question, it is important to understand the difference between background and foreground questions. Background questions are general questions about conditions, illnesses, syndromes, and pathophysiology, while foreground questions are more often about issues of care. The PICO system is often used to define the components of a foreground question: patient group of interest, intervention of interest, comparison, and primary outcome.

When searching for evidence, it is important to have a basic understanding of the types of evidence and sources of information. Scientific literature is divided into two basic categories: primary (empirical research) and secondary (interpretation and analysis of primary sources). Unfiltered sources are large databases of articles that have not been pre-screened for quality, while filtered resources summarize and appraise evidence from several studies.

There are several databases and search engines that can be used to search for evidence, including Medline and PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and OpenGrey. Boolean logic can be used to combine search terms in PubMed, and phrase searching and truncation can also be used. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are used by indexers to describe articles for MEDLINE records, and the MeSH Database is like a thesaurus that enables exploration of this vocabulary.

Measures of dispersion are used to indicate the variation of spread of a data set, often in conjunction with a measure of central tendency such as the mean of median. The range, which is the difference between the largest and smallest value, is the simplest measure of dispersion. The interquartile range, which is the difference between the 3rd and 1st quartiles, is another useful measure. Quartiles divide a data set into quarters, and the interquartile range can provide additional information about the spread of the data. However, to get a more representative idea of spread, measures such as the variance and standard deviation are needed. The variance gives an indication of how much the items in the data set vary from the mean, while the standard deviation reflects the distribution of individual scores around their mean. The standard deviation is expressed in the same units as the data set and can be used to indicate how confident we are that data points lie within a particular range. The standard error of the mean is an inferential statistic used to estimate the population mean and is a measure of the spread expected for the mean of the observations. Confidence intervals are often presented alongside sample results such as the mean value, indicating a range that is likely to contain the true value.

Scales of Measurement in Statistics

In the 1940s, Stanley Smith Stevens introduced four scales of measurement to categorize data variables. Knowing the scale of measurement for a variable is crucial in selecting the appropriate statistical analysis. The four scales of measurement are ratio, interval, ordinal, and nominal.

Ratio scales are similar to interval scales, but they have true zero points. Examples of ratio scales include weight, time, and length. Interval scales measure the difference between two values, and one unit on the scale represents the same magnitude on the trait of characteristic being measured across the whole range of the scale. The Fahrenheit scale for temperature is an example of an interval scale.

Ordinal scales categorize observed values into set categories that can be ordered, but the intervals between each value are uncertain. Examples of ordinal scales include social class, education level, and income level. Nominal scales categorize observed values into set categories that have no particular order of hierarchy. Examples of nominal scales include genotype, blood type, and political party.

Data can also be categorized as quantitative of qualitative. Quantitative variables take on numeric values and can be further classified into discrete and continuous types. Qualitative variables do not take on numerical values and are usually names. Some qualitative variables have an inherent order in their categories and are described as ordinal. Qualitative variables are also called categorical of nominal variables. When a qualitative variable has only two categories, it is called a binary variable.

Kappa is used to assess the consistency of agreement between different raters.

Understanding the Kappa Statistic for Measuring Interobserver Variation

The kappa statistic, also known as Cohen’s kappa coefficient, is a useful tool for quantifying the level of agreement between independent observers. This measure can be applied in any situation where multiple observers are evaluating the same thing, such as in medical diagnoses of research studies. The kappa coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating complete disagreement and 1 indicating perfect agreement. By using the kappa statistic, researchers and practitioners can gain insight into the level of interobserver variation present in their data, which can help to improve the accuracy and reliability of their findings. Overall, the kappa statistic is a valuable tool for understanding and measuring interobserver variation in a variety of contexts.

An ecological fallacy is a potential error that can occur when generalizing relationships observed among groups to individuals. This is a concern when conducting analyses of ecological studies.

Types of Primary Research Studies and Their Advantages and Disadvantages

Primary research studies can be categorized into six types based on the research question they aim to address. The best type of study for each question type is listed in the table below. There are two main types of study design: experimental and observational. Experimental studies involve an intervention, while observational studies do not. The advantages and disadvantages of each study type are summarized in the table below.

Type of Question Best Type of Study

Therapy Randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort, case control, case series
Diagnosis Cohort studies with comparison to gold standard test
Prognosis Cohort studies, case control, case series
Etiology/Harm RCT, cohort studies, case control, case series
Prevention RCT, cohort studies, case control, case series
Cost Economic analysis

Study Type Advantages Disadvantages

Randomized Controlled Trial – Unbiased distribution of confounders – Blinding more likely – Randomization facilitates statistical analysis – Expensive – Time-consuming – Volunteer bias – Ethically problematic at times
Cohort Study – Ethically safe – Subjects can be matched – Can establish timing and directionality of events – Eligibility criteria and outcome assessments can be standardized – Administratively easier and cheaper than RCT – Controls may be difficult to identify – Exposure may be linked to a hidden confounder – Blinding is difficult – Randomization not present – For rare disease, large sample sizes of long follow-up necessary
Case-Control Study – Quick and cheap – Only feasible method for very rare disorders of those with long lag between exposure and outcome – Fewer subjects needed than cross-sectional studies – Reliance on recall of records to determine exposure status – Confounders – Selection of control groups is difficult – Potential bias: recall, selection
Cross-Sectional Survey – Cheap and simple – Ethically safe – Establishes association at most, not causality – Recall bias susceptibility – Confounders may be unequally distributed – Neyman bias – Group sizes may be unequal
Ecological Study – Cheap and simple – Ethically safe – Ecological fallacy (when relationships which exist for groups are assumed to also be true for individuals)

In conclusion, the choice of study type depends on the research question being addressed. Each study type has its own advantages and disadvantages, and researchers should carefully consider these when designing their studies.