Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
st: RE: statalist-digest V4 #4066
From
"Seed, Paul" <[email protected]>
To
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject
st: RE: statalist-digest V4 #4066
Date
Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:50:03 +0000
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:26:47 +0000 (GMT)
From: Maarten buis <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: st: RE: Poisson Regression
- --- Visintainer, Paul wrote:
> My frustration is that when the outcome is common and
> logistic regression is used, there virtually no discussion
> of clinical relevance -- only statistical significance,
> (e.g., is a significant odds ratio of 2.5 clinically
> relevant? Perhaps if the base risk is 2%; perhaps not
> if the base risk 73%.
<snip>
To add to what Maarten wrote -
Paul's frustration seems to be share by increasing numbers of medical researchers.
The most recent CONSORT statement (http://www.consort-statement.org/)
recommend the use of both abolute and relative effects for the results of clincial trials.
This typically means Risk Differences and Risk Ratios (and possibly Number Needed to Treat),
rather than Odds Ratios.
Fortunately, both RR and RD are available from Stata via the -cs-
and -binreg- commands; for unadjusted 2*2 tables and regression modelling respectively.
Best wishes,
Paul Seed
Paul T Seed MSc CStat CSci, Senior Lecturer in Medical Statistics,
King's College London, Division of Women's Health
(& Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences)
St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7EH
*
* 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/