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: 1022283" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>Thanks [USER=17302]@Osidge[/USER] for bringing this report to my attention, It is far more comprehensive, but then it is a meta-study and relies heavily on the trial data being correct in the first place. There are 26 trials being analysed, so the opportunity for outside influence to occur is low. Also, although not stated in the report, it would appear that this study was able to use the raw data rather than the abstracted results from each trial. Thirdly, the funding seems to be valid and correctly limited in influence, so this report does seem to be 'independant'. Again, although not explicitly stated, the analysis does seem to be Pareto based, but I need to contact SAS as I am not familiar with their analysis software. unfortunately the conclusions are all based on Relative Risk which I consider to be inflationary.- I have not seen any definition of how they calculate it, but it does seem ratiometric like the Peto one. However, they do present the percentage RR correctly (not like ASCOT). The team here seem to have done the correct heterogeneity tests to check for cross contamination. All in all, it does seem to be a more believable study, but it will take me some time to go through the 26 trials. I have two concerns spotted on my first reading, and that is that the individual trial data has been weighted and I am not sure if this skews the results in favour of statin use for the [statin vs control] trials. Secondly, the confidence intervals are often 99% CI which is a higher than ususal confidence level, (which is usually 95% CI), and this is extremely aggressive. However, the raw data may not support this level of confidence. I do note in their favour that the CI rsnge limits are quite tight in most cases during the general analysis, but get very slack when making the final conclusions,</p><p></p><p>As i say,you have found a way to keep me quiet for a while. This may take some time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 1022283, member: 196898"] Thanks [USER=17302]@Osidge[/USER] for bringing this report to my attention, It is far more comprehensive, but then it is a meta-study and relies heavily on the trial data being correct in the first place. There are 26 trials being analysed, so the opportunity for outside influence to occur is low. Also, although not stated in the report, it would appear that this study was able to use the raw data rather than the abstracted results from each trial. Thirdly, the funding seems to be valid and correctly limited in influence, so this report does seem to be 'independant'. Again, although not explicitly stated, the analysis does seem to be Pareto based, but I need to contact SAS as I am not familiar with their analysis software. unfortunately the conclusions are all based on Relative Risk which I consider to be inflationary.- I have not seen any definition of how they calculate it, but it does seem ratiometric like the Peto one. However, they do present the percentage RR correctly (not like ASCOT). The team here seem to have done the correct heterogeneity tests to check for cross contamination. All in all, it does seem to be a more believable study, but it will take me some time to go through the 26 trials. I have two concerns spotted on my first reading, and that is that the individual trial data has been weighted and I am not sure if this skews the results in favour of statin use for the [statin vs control] trials. Secondly, the confidence intervals are often 99% CI which is a higher than ususal confidence level, (which is usually 95% CI), and this is extremely aggressive. However, the raw data may not support this level of confidence. I do note in their favour that the CI rsnge limits are quite tight in most cases during the general analysis, but get very slack when making the final conclusions, As i say,you have found a way to keep me quiet for a while. This may take some time. [/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.…