Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Low Carb Diets Dangerous
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oldvatr" data-source="post: 1868914" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>Your PFD as you put it is only one small aspect of what needs to be explored, and you are the first to make that point, but so far no one has identified that as being what is probably wrong with this news item. There is suspicion of poor science and bad methodology that are probably more important. In proper scientific study reports there are chapters identifying the authors, and the sources of funding and any conflicts of interest which this report does not have, so we cannot pass comment on that aspect. Unless you have relevant additional info that could be discussed here...... I will continue trying to evaluate the science and maths behind this study.</p><p></p><p>One point is that the risk the study shouts out at us is Relative Risk (RR) that is always around 10x the actual risk. So it is a measure of hazard, not likelyhood. They are wrong to say someone on an LC diet is 32% more likely to die when the chance of it happening as a direct result of their diet is around 3 in 100 deaths in the general population (assuming this is what was used for the Q1 quartile that becomes their reference set). The sample size is also important since RR really only gives a useful result when the populations of both Q1 and Q(n) are similar in size, and both are large. Otherwise bias creeps in and the risk becomes proportionally worse. We do not know the sample sizes of the test data. </p><p></p><p>Also the confidence Interval shows how much variance is present in the data. They do not explain how variance in their results is handled, and there are no bubble charts from the individual studies in the meta analysis so some of the studies might actually be very poor indeed and thus unreliable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 1868914, member: 196898"] Your PFD as you put it is only one small aspect of what needs to be explored, and you are the first to make that point, but so far no one has identified that as being what is probably wrong with this news item. There is suspicion of poor science and bad methodology that are probably more important. In proper scientific study reports there are chapters identifying the authors, and the sources of funding and any conflicts of interest which this report does not have, so we cannot pass comment on that aspect. Unless you have relevant additional info that could be discussed here...... I will continue trying to evaluate the science and maths behind this study. One point is that the risk the study shouts out at us is Relative Risk (RR) that is always around 10x the actual risk. So it is a measure of hazard, not likelyhood. They are wrong to say someone on an LC diet is 32% more likely to die when the chance of it happening as a direct result of their diet is around 3 in 100 deaths in the general population (assuming this is what was used for the Q1 quartile that becomes their reference set). The sample size is also important since RR really only gives a useful result when the populations of both Q1 and Q(n) are similar in size, and both are large. Otherwise bias creeps in and the risk becomes proportionally worse. We do not know the sample sizes of the test data. Also the confidence Interval shows how much variance is present in the data. They do not explain how variance in their results is handled, and there are no bubble charts from the individual studies in the meta analysis so some of the studies might actually be very poor indeed and thus unreliable. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Low Carb Diets Dangerous
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…