It means the 95% confidence interval is 0.45-0.83.
confidence interval is
Mean + or - z*standard error
Posted from TSR Mobile
confidence interval is
Mean + or - z*standard error
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by simonli2575
It means the 95% confidence interval is 0.45-0.83.
confidence interval is
Mean + or - z*standard error
Posted from TSR Mobile
confidence interval is
Mean + or - z*standard error
Posted from TSR Mobile
but what does the 0.45 0.83 stand for ? is it the concentration the therapy would be effective?
No, they're the lower bound and the upper bound of this 95% CI.
With 0.45, it means mean - z*s.e. = 0.45
Posted from TSR Mobile
With 0.45, it means mean - z*s.e. = 0.45
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by simonli2575
No, they're the lower bound and the upper bound of this 95% CI.
With 0.45, it means mean - z*s.e. = 0.45
Posted from TSR Mobile
With 0.45, it means mean - z*s.e. = 0.45
Posted from TSR Mobile
Ive never done maths as a subject can you dumb it down and tell me what this means in the context of the question?
Original post by asaaal
Ive never done maths as a subject can you dumb it down and tell me what this means in the context of the question?
I'll try.
It means in 95% of the time, the confidence interval will contain the true mean, so we're 95% confident that the true mean lies between 0.45-0.83.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by simonli2575
I'll try.
It means in 95% of the time, the confidence interval will contain the true mean, so we're 95% confident that the true mean lies between 0.45-0.83.
Posted from TSR Mobile
It means in 95% of the time, the confidence interval will contain the true mean, so we're 95% confident that the true mean lies between 0.45-0.83.
Posted from TSR Mobile
so the mean of whatever I'm measuring? so the concentration of my drug in this case would be between 0.45-0.83?
if i have two studies that measured the same thing in different ways and lets say one gave a 95% CI of 0.56 - 0.70 and the other 0.60-0.71 does that increase the validity of the study at the CI's overlapped?
(edited 9 years ago)
Maybe. Though Maybe instead of using their values of CI, I would instead use all of the data to find a new confidence interval.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by simonli2575
Maybe. Though Maybe instead of using their values of CI, I would instead use all of the data to find a new confidence interval.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
How would i do that?
Thank you so much by the way, life saver !
Original post by asaaal
does anyone else happen to know as I'm pretty desperate 
Hey,
The 0.45-0.83 numbers are are the upper and lower bounds for the risk reduction, not the concentration of the drug. Can you give a link to the paper? You'll need to know if it's relative or absolute risk reduction.
By the sounds of it the paper is saying that the drug has reduced heart disease in diabetics by somewhere in the range of 45%-85% (i.e. 0.45-0.83) compared to something else probably a control?. It's given as a range because of the uncertainty in the study so one cannot say it's reduced heart disease risk by one exact figure, the range (i.e. the confidence interval) is such that you can be 95% sure this is where the actual exact figure lies.
Hope that helped
(edited 9 years ago)
Sorry didn't see your other post,
But because the confidence intervals overlap,
that means the means (technically speaking not the means but the 'true value' for the risk reductions) of the two studies could be the same and hence there is no statistically significant difference between the two.
If the authors concluded there was no significant difference then it would be a valid conclusion but if they said there was then that would reduce the validity of the study.
But because the confidence intervals overlap,
that means the means (technically speaking not the means but the 'true value' for the risk reductions) of the two studies could be the same and hence there is no statistically significant difference between the two.
If the authors concluded there was no significant difference then it would be a valid conclusion but if they said there was then that would reduce the validity of the study.
Original post by ab192
Hey,
The 0.45-0.83 numbers are are the upper and lower bounds for the risk reduction, not the concentration of the drug. Can you give a link to the paper? You'll need to know if it's relative or absolute risk reduction.
By the sounds of it the paper is saying that the drug has reduced heart disease in diabetics by somewhere in the range of 45%-85% (i.e. 0.45-0.83). It's given as a range because of the uncertainty in the study so one cannot say it's reduced heart disease risk by one exact figure, the range (i.e. the confidence interval) is such that you can be 95% sure this is where the actual exact figure lies.
Hope that helped
The 0.45-0.83 numbers are are the upper and lower bounds for the risk reduction, not the concentration of the drug. Can you give a link to the paper? You'll need to know if it's relative or absolute risk reduction.
By the sounds of it the paper is saying that the drug has reduced heart disease in diabetics by somewhere in the range of 45%-85% (i.e. 0.45-0.83). It's given as a range because of the uncertainty in the study so one cannot say it's reduced heart disease risk by one exact figure, the range (i.e. the confidence interval) is such that you can be 95% sure this is where the actual exact figure lies.
Hope that helped
Thank you very much for your reply.
Here is one (and i will link the other on a different message as it exceeds the limit of one message).
Ive also attached my own table where i have collated the data from both studies do they are the same units i.e mmol. Now i want to go a step forward and combine data but idk how to !!
http://www.clinchem.org/content/42/12/1938.long
Original post by ab192
Hey,
The 0.45-0.83 numbers are are the upper and lower bounds for the risk reduction, not the concentration of the drug. Can you give a link to the paper? You'll need to know if it's relative or absolute risk reduction.
By the sounds of it the paper is saying that the drug has reduced heart disease in diabetics by somewhere in the range of 45%-85% (i.e. 0.45-0.83) compared to something else probably a control?. It's given as a range because of the uncertainty in the study so one cannot say it's reduced heart disease risk by one exact figure, the range (i.e. the confidence interval) is such that you can be 95% sure this is where the actual exact figure lies.
Hope that helped
The 0.45-0.83 numbers are are the upper and lower bounds for the risk reduction, not the concentration of the drug. Can you give a link to the paper? You'll need to know if it's relative or absolute risk reduction.
By the sounds of it the paper is saying that the drug has reduced heart disease in diabetics by somewhere in the range of 45%-85% (i.e. 0.45-0.83) compared to something else probably a control?. It's given as a range because of the uncertainty in the study so one cannot say it's reduced heart disease risk by one exact figure, the range (i.e. the confidence interval) is such that you can be 95% sure this is where the actual exact figure lies.
Hope that helped
http://www.clinchem.org/content/42/12/1938.long
sorry it wouldn't let me attach it but I've found it online: this is the second paper: http://www.clinchem.org/content/42/12/1938.long
Original post by ab192
Hey,
The 0.45-0.83 numbers are are the upper and lower bounds for the risk reduction, not the concentration of the drug. Can you give a link to the paper? You'll need to know if it's relative or absolute risk reduction.
By the sounds of it the paper is saying that the drug has reduced heart disease in diabetics by somewhere in the range of 45%-85% (i.e. 0.45-0.83) compared to something else probably a control?. It's given as a range because of the uncertainty in the study so one cannot say it's reduced heart disease risk by one exact figure, the range (i.e. the confidence interval) is such that you can be 95% sure this is where the actual exact figure lies.
Hope that helped
The 0.45-0.83 numbers are are the upper and lower bounds for the risk reduction, not the concentration of the drug. Can you give a link to the paper? You'll need to know if it's relative or absolute risk reduction.
By the sounds of it the paper is saying that the drug has reduced heart disease in diabetics by somewhere in the range of 45%-85% (i.e. 0.45-0.83) compared to something else probably a control?. It's given as a range because of the uncertainty in the study so one cannot say it's reduced heart disease risk by one exact figure, the range (i.e. the confidence interval) is such that you can be 95% sure this is where the actual exact figure lies.
Hope that helped
scrap my last messages and studies. So basically...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626030/ < This is study A and I would like to find the 95% CI of this
I have this statement from the study B which states: 'A study showed 1,708 patients with diabetes (approximately 33% of the total participants) showed fourty one percent reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events (95% CI: 0.45-0.8) - i am given this CI already in the findings of the study.
I want to compare CI of diabetic patients (as both of these studies used diabetics) who were given EDTA therapy.
I have no idea how to do this....
Q1. I was already given the cI for study B but do have to do anything differently because I am comparing to study A
Q2. how do i find CI of A?
Q3. What does it mean if their CI overlap?
Q4. Can i combine the data to get one CI?
Original post by asaaal
so the mean of whatever I'm measuring? so the concentration of my drug in this case would be between 0.45-0.83?
if i have two studies that measured the same thing in different ways and lets say one gave a 95% CI of 0.56 - 0.70 and the other 0.60-0.71 does that increase the validity of the study at the CI's overlapped?
if i have two studies that measured the same thing in different ways and lets say one gave a 95% CI of 0.56 - 0.70 and the other 0.60-0.71 does that increase the validity of the study at the CI's overlapped?
No,
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How mathematical is business economics course?
- research analysis
- GSS Higher Statistical Officer Interview
- KS plot
- Engaa help plsss urgent!!
- OCR A-level Further Mathematics A Statistics (Y542) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Academic literacy
- Edexcel A-level Statistics Paper 2 (9ST0 02) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- drawing error bars from standard deviation urgent!!
- Help urgent mathematics
- C2 trig changing the intervals
- Poisson process
- further maths question
- Urgent maths help 😭
- A level maths linear interpolation HELP
- Drowsiness when revising
- Help modulus
- A-level maths help!
- Help stats maths
- Ultrasound 6 mark
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Did Cambridge maths students find maths and further maths a level very easy?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme correct me if wrongMaths
71
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Did Cambridge maths students find maths and further maths a level very easy?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme correct me if wrongMaths
71
