Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: st: Wald interval and the WSJ


From   Maarten buis <maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Wald interval and the WSJ
Date   Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:56:46 +0100 (BST)

It looks to me (though the article doesn't say) that this deals with a
test of multinomial proportions. This is a difficult problem, the exact
test statistic exists, but is actually not exact at all but
conservative, various other/better approximations have been proposed,
but now you have to decide how to choose between them. In this case all
the different p-values are very close to .05 (from .049 to .052 whith a
spike at .55) The articles puts great emphasis on the fact that all but
one test results in p-values more then .05, and that the company
conveniently choose the one test that supported their claim. That may
or may not be suspicious, but my reading of a study like this is that
these numbers are so close to .05 (and there is nothing magical or
`scientific' about the number .05) that making a big deal about a black
and white distinction between significant and non-significant is pretty
ridiculous. I know that this doesn't help an agency like the FDA who
have to make a approve or disaprove decision (and they certainly don't
ask my advise), but sometimes a study just ends up in a grey area
between significant and insignificant.

-- Maarten

--- Scott Merryman <scott.merryman@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is an interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal on the
> use of the Wald interval in clinical trials.
> 
> "Boston Scientific Stent Study Flawed"  by Keith Winstein, August 14,
> 2008; Page B1.
> 
> "But Boston Scientific's claim was based on a flawed statistical
> equation that favored the Liberte stent, a Journal analysis has
> found.
> Using a number of other methods of calculation -- including 14
> available in off-the-shelf software programs -- the Liberte study
> would have been a failure by the common standards of statistical
> significance in research.
> Boston Scientific isn't the only company to use the equation, known
> as
> a Wald interval, which has long been criticized by statisticians for
> exaggerating the certainty of research results. "
> 
>
http://digg.com/business_finance/WSJ_com_Boston_Scientific_Stent_Study_Flawed
> 
> Scott
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
> 


-----------------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Department of Social Research Methodology
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands

visiting address:
Buitenveldertselaan 3 (Metropolitan), room Z434

+31 20 5986715

http://home.fsw.vu.nl/m.buis/
-----------------------------------------

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index