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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 asymmetric funnel plot may indicate the presence of publication bias, although this is not a definitive confirmation. The x-axis typically represents a measure of effect, such as the risk ratio of odds ratio, although other measures may also be used.

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.

Relative risk reduction (RRR) is calculated as the percentage decrease in the occurrence of events in the experimental group (EER) compared to the control group (CER). It can be expressed as:

RRR = 1 – (EER / CER)

For example, if the EER is 18 and the CER is 33, then the RRR can be calculated as:

RRR = 1 – (18 / 33) = 0.45 of 45%

Alternatively, the RRR can be calculated as the difference between the CER and EER divided by the CER:

RRR = (CER – EER) / CER

Using the same example, the RRR can be calculated as:

RRR = (33 – 18) / 33 = 0.45 of 45%

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.

Understanding ROC Curves and AUC Values

ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curves are graphs used to evaluate the effectiveness of a test in distinguishing between two groups, such as those with and without a disease. The curve plots the true positive rate against the false positive rate at different threshold settings. The goal is to find the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, which can be adjusted by changing the threshold. AUC (area under the curve) is a measure of the overall performance of the test, with higher values indicating better accuracy. The conventional grading of AUC values ranges from excellent to fail. ROC curves and AUC values are useful in evaluating diagnostic and screening tools, comparing different tests, and studying inter-observer variability.

Epidemiology Key Terms

– Epidemic (Outbreak): A rise in disease cases above the anticipated level in a specific population during a particular time frame.
– Endemic: The regular of anticipated level of disease in a particular population.
– Pandemic: Epidemics that affect a significant number of individuals across multiple countries, regions, of continents.

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.

Clinical tests are used to determine the presence of absence of a disease of condition. To interpret test results, it is important to have a working knowledge of statistics used to describe them. Two by two tables are commonly used to calculate test statistics such as sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity refers to the proportion of people with a condition that the test correctly identifies, while specificity refers to the proportion of people without a condition that the test correctly identifies. Accuracy tells us how closely a test measures to its true value, while predictive values help us understand the likelihood of having a disease based on a positive of negative test result. Likelihood ratios combine sensitivity and specificity into a single figure that can refine our estimation of the probability of a disease being present. Pre and post-test odds and probabilities can also be calculated to better understand the likelihood of having a disease before and after a test is carried out. Fagan’s nomogram is a useful tool for calculating post-test probabilities.

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.

The probability of detecting a difference by chance is 1 in 20 times when the p-value is 0.05, which is the conventional cutoff. In this case, the answer is 1 in 14 times, which is equivalent to a p-value of 0.07.

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.

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 t-test is appropriate for analyzing data that meets parametric assumptions, while other tests are more suitable for non-parametric data.

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.

The Delphi Method: A Widely Used Technique for Achieving Convergence of Opinion

The Delphi method is a well-established technique for soliciting expert opinions on real-world knowledge within specific topic areas. The process involves multiple rounds of questionnaires, with each round building on the previous one to achieve convergence of opinion among the participants. However, there are potential issues with the Delphi method, such as the time-consuming nature of the process, low response rates, and the potential for investigators to influence the opinions of the participants. Despite these challenges, the Delphi method remains a valuable tool for generating consensus among experts in various fields.

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.

The scenario described above highlights the issue of information bias, which can arise due to errors in measuring, collecting, of interpreting data related to the exposure of disease. Specifically, interviewer/observer bias is a type of information bias that can occur when a single psychiatrist has a tendency to either over of under diagnose a condition, potentially skewing the study results.

Types of Bias in Statistics

Bias is a systematic error that can lead to incorrect conclusions. Confounding factors are variables that are associated with both the outcome and the exposure but have no causative role. Confounding can be addressed in the design and analysis stage of a study. The main method of controlling confounding in the analysis phase is stratification analysis. The main methods used in the design stage are matching, randomization, and restriction of participants.

There are two main types of bias: selection bias and information bias. Selection bias occurs when the selected sample is not a representative sample of the reference population. Disease spectrum bias, self-selection bias, participation bias, incidence-prevalence bias, exclusion bias, publication of dissemination bias, citation bias, and Berkson’s bias are all subtypes of selection bias. Information bias occurs when gathered information about exposure, outcome, of both is not correct and there was an error in measurement. Detection bias, recall bias, lead time bias, interviewer/observer bias, verification and work-up bias, Hawthorne effect, and ecological fallacy are all subtypes of information bias.

Types of Bias in Statistics

Bias is a systematic error that can lead to incorrect conclusions. Confounding factors are variables that are associated with both the outcome and the exposure but have no causative role. Confounding can be addressed in the design and analysis stage of a study. The main method of controlling confounding in the analysis phase is stratification analysis. The main methods used in the design stage are matching, randomization, and restriction of participants.

There are two main types of bias: selection bias and information bias. Selection bias occurs when the selected sample is not a representative sample of the reference population. Disease spectrum bias, self-selection bias, participation bias, incidence-prevalence bias, exclusion bias, publication of dissemination bias, citation bias, and Berkson’s bias are all subtypes of selection bias. Information bias occurs when gathered information about exposure, outcome, of both is not correct and there was an error in measurement. Detection bias, recall bias, lead time bias, interviewer/observer bias, verification and work-up bias, Hawthorne effect, and ecological fallacy are all subtypes of information bias.

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.

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.

The odds of being married are 3.77 times higher in individuals with panic disorder compared to controls.

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.

To determine the number needed to treat (NNT), we first calculated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) using the formula ARR = CER – EER, where CER is the control event rate and EER is the experimental event rate. In this case, the ARR was 0.47, which is the reciprocal of the NNT. Therefore, the NNT was calculated as 2.12. This means that for every two patients treated with the active medication, at least one patient will have a better outcome compared to those treated with a placebo.

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.

Intention to Treat Analysis in Randomized Controlled Trials

Intention to treat analysis is a statistical method used in randomized controlled trials to analyze all patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment group, regardless of whether they completed of received the treatment. This approach is used to avoid the potential biases that may arise from patients dropping out of switching between treatment groups. By analyzing all patients according to their original treatment assignment, intention to treat analysis provides a more accurate representation of the true treatment effects. This method is widely used in clinical trials to ensure that the results are reliable and unbiased.

Since the data is normally distributed and the study aims to evaluate the correlation between two variables, the most suitable test to use is Pearson’s product-moment coefficient. On the other hand, if the data is non-parametric, Spearman’s coefficient would be more appropriate.

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.

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.