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
Statins - good or bad - what does the research say?
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: 1022161" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>Hi [USER=195124]@seadragon[/USER]. The formula is more complicated than it needs to be. To a first approximation for a rough idea, the terms (a+c) and (b+d) represent the respective sample sizes (n) in the ASCOT report. So if the sample sizes are the same (as they virtually are in ASCOT LLA period), then these terms cancel out,and the formula reduces to RR= a / b. In the LLA section of the report this becomes 83 / 90 which = 0.9222, i other words 92.2 %. </p><p></p><p>Using the formula in full with the report figures gives a closer value of 0.916. When expresed as a percentage then this becomes 91.6% which gives a reduction in risk of approx 8.4%, which is nothing like the 36% claimed, but is close to your doctors figure. The formula by the way is taken from a textbook on PETO method, so is what they should have used. </p><p></p><p>I beg to differ with their result. Personally I prefer Reduction = (a - b) as the usual way of showing a change i.e. 3% in this case rather than the factorial given for RR in PETO. You can do anything with statistics, but I am still struggling to make that 36% from anything I see in their report. The reduction becomes less when doing these calcs on the 11 year period figures, so LLA should be their best shot.</p><p></p><p>By the way, PETO is used for most medical research analysis, such as cancer tumour growth rates, effectivity of new drugs etc. it was used to prove that tobacco was safe to use. As the tetbook warns, Peto is now considered to be 'open to bias'. In avionics we dropped PETO and used Pareto analysis instead to satisfy FAA regulations. the ADA and FDA still use Peto.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 1022161, member: 196898"] Hi [USER=195124]@seadragon[/USER]. The formula is more complicated than it needs to be. To a first approximation for a rough idea, the terms (a+c) and (b+d) represent the respective sample sizes (n) in the ASCOT report. So if the sample sizes are the same (as they virtually are in ASCOT LLA period), then these terms cancel out,and the formula reduces to RR= a / b. In the LLA section of the report this becomes 83 / 90 which = 0.9222, i other words 92.2 %. Using the formula in full with the report figures gives a closer value of 0.916. When expresed as a percentage then this becomes 91.6% which gives a reduction in risk of approx 8.4%, which is nothing like the 36% claimed, but is close to your doctors figure. The formula by the way is taken from a textbook on PETO method, so is what they should have used. I beg to differ with their result. Personally I prefer Reduction = (a - b) as the usual way of showing a change i.e. 3% in this case rather than the factorial given for RR in PETO. You can do anything with statistics, but I am still struggling to make that 36% from anything I see in their report. The reduction becomes less when doing these calcs on the 11 year period figures, so LLA should be their best shot. By the way, PETO is used for most medical research analysis, such as cancer tumour growth rates, effectivity of new drugs etc. it was used to prove that tobacco was safe to use. As the tetbook warns, Peto is now considered to be 'open to bias'. In avionics we dropped PETO and used Pareto analysis instead to satisfy FAA regulations. the ADA and FDA still use Peto. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Statins - good or bad - what does the research say?
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.…