首页> 外文期刊>Statistics in medicine >Simple methods for checking for possible errors in reported odds ratios, relative risks and confidence intervals.
【24h】

Simple methods for checking for possible errors in reported odds ratios, relative risks and confidence intervals.

机译:用于检查报告的优势比,相对风险和置信区间中可能存在的错误的简单方法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Meta-analyses of data from epidemiological studies are often based on odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) and their 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs) as reported by the authors. Where possible ORs, RRs and CIs should be checked against the source data. Some simple methods are presented for checking the validity of reported ORs, RRs and CIs where the source data are not available. These methods include inferring the minimum total number of subjects in the study, the minimum total number of cases and the minimum number there must be in any disease/exposure category. Examples taken from the literature on environmental tobacco smoke exposure (ETS) illustrate that errors in published data are not infrequent and may stay undetected in meta-analyses. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
机译:作者报告说,流行病学研究数据的荟萃分析通常基于比值比(OR)或相对风险(RR)及其95%的置信区间(CI)。如有可能,应对照源数据检查OR,RR和CI。提出了一些简单的方法来检查所报告的OR,RR和CI的有效性,其中没有源数据。这些方法包括推断研究中受试者的最小总数,最小病例总数以及任何疾病/暴露类别中必须存在的最小数目。从有关环境烟草烟雾暴露(ETS)的文献中得出的例子表明,公开数据中的错误并非罕见,并且在荟萃分析中可能未被发现。版权所有1999 John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号