Re: Medical Research
- From: "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 08:02:04 GMT
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e48jb2$1cj8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Statistical significance says absolutely nothing about the
magnitude of the effect, nor does its lack.
Whether a treatment is good is not changed by collecting
data, and intelligent decision making will cause the use of
many treatments before that much information is present.
Suppose you had a disease which was about 50% lethal, and
you gave a million people each a placebo or a treatment.
Suppose the difference of the survival rates was 1% in
favor of the treatment. That is extremely significant, so
much so that one could say it was proved that the treatment
had an effect. I suggest that an experimental treatment
which has cured three out of three is a better bet,
although this is not statistically significant.
Well, Herman, that is just what Skeptic did to me. He sent me to look at
a study with a lot of faults which had a test of significance where,
according to the study, "The absolute reduction in the risk of death after
10 years is small" but signficant statistically on the other hand. Small.
So you pretty well predicted the response from Skeptic. Now what?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Medical Research
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Medical Research
- From: Skeptic
- Re: Medical Research
- References:
- Breast Cancer Research
- From: george conklin
- Re: Breast Cancer Research
- From: Skeptic
- Medical Research
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Medical Research
- From: Skeptic
- Re: Medical Research
- From: Herman Rubin
- Breast Cancer Research
- Prev by Date: Re: Medical Research
- Next by Date: Re: Medical Research-Evidence
- Previous by thread: Re: Medical Research
- Next by thread: Re: Medical Research
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|