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

From |
Steven Samuels <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: Wald interval and the WSJ |

Date |
Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:35:39 -0400 |

The 1-sided .95 confidence interval for the treatment difference given in the article excludes the null value of .03; the problem is that the proper non-inferiority test statistic would have p>.05. Fleiss, Levin, Paik (Statistical Methods for Rates and Propotions, 2nd Ed, Wiley, pp 168-174) show one proper non-inferiority statistic (I'm not sure which of the listed alternatives it corresponds to). In an ordinary Wald Z Statistic, the denominator contains terms in p1(1-p1)/n1 and p0(1-p0)/n0. In the non-inferiority setting, the probabilities are changed to: P1 and P0, where P1 - P0 =.03 (the null hypothesis. These are the maximum likelihood estimates under the null hypothesis.

With the article data. P1 = .062 and P2 = .092. The denominator term in the test statistic for the Wald test is 0.012401. The denominator term with P1 and P2 is .012591. The ratio is .984876. Therefore the proper Z statistic would be equal to the Wald statistic reduced by this ratio.

Now, the p-value for the Wald statistic in the paper was .0487, equivalent to Z = 1.6575912. The "proper z" would have been 1.6325, with a p-value of 0.0512, close to what the WSJ article reported for the alternatives.

-Steve

On Aug 14, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Maarten buis wrote:

--- David Airey <[email protected]> wrote:Actually, the point estimate seems to suggest that the new stent doesAnd also the article doesn't emphasize effect size, which might make the quibbling over p values moot too.

better then the old one, if I read the original article

(http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/49/16/1676) correctly,

and I know absolutely nothing about cardiology other than that a

working hart is sorta crucial in staying alive.

I read this article as follows: The thing under study is how well two

types of stents prevent a thing called TVR (target vessel

revascularization) which is apperently a bad thing. In the group with

old stents this occured 68 times out of 855 (7.95%), while in the group

with new stents this occured 67 out of 956 times (7.01%). The purpose

of this study is to test the hypothesis that the proportion new -

porportion old > .03 .

I have been looking around if I could reproduce the tests reported in

the Wall Street Journal using Stata, but remained unsuccesful. This

probably says more about me than about Stata, because statistically

this is also unfamiliar terain for me, as I almost always do some sort

of regression, moreover if I where to look at tests like these I would

probably prefer odds ratios rather than risk differences.

-- Maarten

-----------------------------------------

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/

* * 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/

**References**:**Re: st: Wald interval and the WSJ***From:*Maarten buis <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: RE: convergence problems with zinb** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: Wald interval and the WSJ** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Wald interval and the WSJ** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: Wald interval and the WSJ** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |