{"id":846,"date":"2014-02-02T00:43:21","date_gmt":"2014-02-01T23:43:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/?p=846"},"modified":"2014-02-05T00:34:33","modified_gmt":"2014-02-04T23:34:33","slug":"statsminiblog-exact-vs-approximate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/2014\/02\/02\/statsminiblog-exact-vs-approximate\/","title":{"rendered":"StatsMiniBlog: Exact vs. approximate"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/files\/2014\/02\/20140204-233354.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/files\/2014\/02\/20140204-233354.jpg\" alt=\"20140204-233354.jpg\" class=\"alignnone size-full\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Sounds very good, doesn&#8217;t it? Precise to the most precicestness.<\/p>\n<p>And yet &#8230; sometimes an approximate confidence interval is better. You see, it all means what &#8216;exact&#8217; exactly refers to &#8230;<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>The descriptions usually arise from a proportion; the number of patients with an outcome out of the total number of patients;<\/p>\n<p>n \/ N<\/p>\n<p>Now if the outcome happened to 10 patients, and there were 100 in the trial, this would lead to the proportion being:<\/p>\n<p>10 \/ 100 = 0.1<\/p>\n<p>The usual method of calculating CI is to find the standard error, and then go 1.96 up and down from the mean. When numbers get small (N=50 usually) this type of CI (called a\u00a0<em>Wald approximation<\/em>) tends to be way too small, and runs into other problems, if the number of events (n) is tiny or nearly as big as N, so the proportion is ~0 or ~1, this approach leads to impossible confidence intervals, with negative proportions or proportions greater than 1. (And while we all know the boys gave 1.1 during the match &#8230;.)<\/p>\n<p>An &#8216;exact&#8217; confidence interval estimates what the &#8216;true&#8217; proportion of patients with the outcome would be, if you had repeated trials, by assuming that the outcomes will follow a binomial distribution. Now this is much much better, but if the trial you are calculating the CI from is small (N small) then the CI is actually way too big.<\/p>\n<p>What you&#8217;re actually wanting is not the &#8216;exact&#8217; method, but something that approximates the truth a bit closer than either (the\u00a0<em>Wilson\u00a0<\/em> or\u00a0<em>Agresti-Coull\u00a0<\/em>method). This gives relatively accurate 95% CI down to N=5<\/p>\n<p>So despite the confidence imbued by the term &#8216;exact&#8217;, you actually want a (non-Wald) approximation for the CI of your proportions.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Archi<\/p>\n<p><!--TrendMD v2.4.8--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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&#8217;t it? Precise to the most precicestness. And yet &#8230; sometimes an approximate confidence interval is better. You see, it all means what &#8216;exact&#8217; exactly refers [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p><a class=\"btn btn-secondary understrap-read-more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/2014\/02\/02\/statsminiblog-exact-vs-approximate\/\">Read More&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2676],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-846","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-stats"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/846","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=846"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/846\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=846"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=846"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=846"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}