StatsMiniBlog: Exact vs. approximate

You may well come across descriptions in the stats parts of papers that describe how the authors have derived their confidence intervals using an exact method. Sounds very good, doesn’t it? Precise to the most precicestness. And yet … sometimes an approximate confidence interval is better. You see, it all means what ‘exact’ exactly refers […]

Read More…

Basics. How much is enough?

We’ve approached EBM by thinking about it as a framework for thinking, not a checklist to tick though. It’s the combination of patients views, clinical expertise and relevant research. The process is of asking, acquiring, appraising, applying and assessing. But when it comes to applying evidence to answer a question – how much is enough? […]

Read More…

StatsMiniBlog. Regression

Now, regression is a bad thing if we’re talking development. It might be any number of really difficult to pronounce neurological conditions, or severe psychological trauma, or abuse/neglect. It’s not going to be good. In statistics, it’s not quite the same. Regression is quite often a good thing. But what is it? […]

Read More…

Basics. RR, OR and the like

Just a few posts ago, we introduced the idea of NNT as being an ‘absolute’ measure of how effective a treatment is; that is, the number of folk needed to treat to get one extra good result, compared to something else. This can be used to balance against stuff that might be negative – such […]

Read More…

Basics. NNT

The NNT – number needed to treat – is thought by many to be a central core of EBMing. (I’d argue that the numbers in EBM are only a small part of the equation – and that understanding the question and the biases inherent in the study design are greater – but I’d still agree […]

Read More…