# Confidence interval

Watch
Announcements

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

It says: Patients with diabetes had a reduction in risk (95% CI 0.45-0.83) of heart disease.

What does this mean?

What does this mean?

0

reply

Report

#2

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

0

reply

(Original post by

It means the 95% confidence interval is 0.45-0.83.

confidence interval is

Mean + or - z*standard error

Posted from TSR Mobile

**simonli2575**)It means the 95% confidence interval is 0.45-0.83.

confidence interval is

Mean + or - z*standard error

Posted from TSR Mobile

0

reply

Report

#4

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

0

reply

(Original post by

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

**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

0

reply

Report

#6

(Original post by

Ive never done maths as a subject can you dumb it down and tell me what this means in the context of the question?

**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?

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

0

reply

(Original post by

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

**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

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?

0

reply

Report

#8

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

0

reply

(Original post by

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

**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

Thank you so much by the way, life saver !

0

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

does anyone else happen to know as I'm pretty desperate

**asaaal**)does anyone else happen to know as I'm pretty desperate

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

0

reply

Report

#12

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.

0

reply

(Original post by

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

**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

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

0

reply

(Original post by

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

**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

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

0

reply

**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

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?

0

reply

Report

#17

(Original post by

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?

**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?

Posted from TSR Mobile

0

reply

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top