Odds Ratio And Random Error
Contents |
Health Search databasePMCAll DatabasesAssemblyBioProjectBioSampleBioSystemsBooksClinVarCloneConserved DomainsdbGaPdbVarESTGeneGenomeGEO DataSetsGEO ProfilesGSSGTRHomoloGeneMedGenMeSHNCBI Web SiteNLM
Random Error Vs Systematic Error Epidemiology
CatalogNucleotideOMIMPMCPopSetProbeProteinProtein ClustersPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstancePubMedPubMed HealthSNPSparcleSRAStructureTaxonomyToolKitToolKitAllToolKitBookToolKitBookghUniGeneSearch termSearch Advanced what is random error in epidemiology Journal list Help Journal ListHHS Author ManuscriptsPMC4107355 Anesth Analg. Author manuscript; available in the absence of confounding can be verified in a study. PMC 2015 Aug 1.Published in final edited form as:Anesth Analg. 2014 Aug; 119(2): 497–498. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000251PMCID: PMC4107355NIHMSID: NIHMS577975Random Errors and
Chance In Epidemiology
Misclassification BiasRobert B. Schonberger, MD, MARobert B. Schonberger, Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut;Robert B. Schonberger: ude.elay@regrebnohcs.trebor Author information ► Copyright and License information ►Copyright notice and DisclaimerThe publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Anesth
Randomness Error
AnalgSee the article "The association between nitrous oxide and postoperative mortality and morbidity after noncardiac surgery." in Anesth Analg, volume 116 on page 1026.See the article "This wonder-working gas." in Anesth Analg, volume 116 on page 955.To the EditorTuran et al.’s discussion and accompanying editorial1, 2 cogently discuss the limitations of their retrospective study design and are further complemented by the senior author’s recent manuscript demonstrating the importance of prospective validation of retrospective findings.3 Nevertheless, I would like to offer an important factual correction to the stated limitations that continues to go unrecognized in many studies of this type.Turan et al. state: “To the extent that outcomes occurred postoperatively or were missed through incomplete coding, reported frequencies will underestimate the true incidence. But unless outcome identifica
Health Search databasePMCAll DatabasesAssemblyBioProjectBioSampleBioSystemsBooksClinVarCloneConserved DomainsdbGaPdbVarESTGeneGenomeGEO DataSetsGEO ProfilesGSSGTRHomoloGeneMedGenMeSHNCBI Web SiteNLM CatalogNucleotideOMIMPMCPopSetProbeProteinProtein ClustersPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstancePubMedPubMed how to reduce random error HealthSNPSparcleSRAStructureTaxonomyToolKitToolKitAllToolKitBookToolKitBookghUniGeneSearch termSearch Advanced Journal list Help Journal ListJ Can
Confounding Epidemiology
Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatryv.19(3); 2010 AugPMC2938757 J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010 how to reduce systematic error Aug; 19(3): 227–229. PMCID: PMC2938757Explaining Odds RatiosMagdalena Szumilas, MSc11 Research Associate, Sun Life Financial Chair in Adolescent Mental Health, IWK Health Centre & http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4107355/ Dalhousie University, Maritime Outpatient Psychiatry, Halifax, Nova ScotiaCorresponding Email: moc.liamg@salimuzsadgamAuthor information ► Copyright and License information ►Copyright © 2010 Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryThis article has been corrected. See J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015 March 4; 24(1): 58.This article has been cited http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938757/ by other articles in PMC.What is an odds ratio?An odds ratio (OR) is a measure of association between an exposure and an outcome. The OR represents the odds that an outcome will occur given a particular exposure, compared to the odds of the outcome occurring in the absence of that exposure. Odds ratios are most commonly used in case-control studies, however they can also be used in cross-sectional and cohort study designs as well (with some modifications and/or assumptions).Odds ratios and logistic regressionWhen a logistic regression is calculated, the regression coefficient (b1) is the estimated increase in the log odds of the outcome per unit increase in the value of the exposure. In other words, the exponential function of the regression coefficient (eb1) is the odds ratio associated with a one-unit increase in the exposure.W
Printer-friendly version Consider the figure below. If the true value is the center of the target, the measured responses in the first instance may be considered reliable, precise or as having negligible random error, but all https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat507/node/34 the responses missed the true value by a wide margin. A biased estimate has https://en.wikivet.net/Random_error been obtained. In contrast, the target on the right has more random error in the measurements, however, the results are valid, lacking systematic error. The average response is exactly in the center of the target. The middle target depicts our goal: observations that are both reliable (small random error) and valid (without systematic error). Accuracy random error for a Sample Size of 5 Bias, confounding and effect modification in epidemiology When examining the relationship between an explanatory factor and an outcome, we are interested in identifying factors that may modify the factor's effect on the outcome (effect modifiers). We must also be aware of potential bias or confounding in a study because these can cause a reported association (or lack thereof) to be misleading. Bias and confounding how to reduce are related to the measurement and study design. Let 's define these terms: Bias: A systematic error in the design, recruitment, data collection or analysis that results in a mistaken estimation of the true effect of the exposure and the outcome. Confounding: A situation in which the effect or association between an exposure and outcome is distorted by the presence of another variable. Positive confounding (when the observed association is biased away from the null) and negative confounding (when the observed association is biased toward the null) both occur. Effect modification : a variable that differentially (positively and negatively) modifies the observed effect of a risk factor on disease status. Different groups have different risk estimates when effect modification is present.. If the method used to select subjects or collect data results in an incorrect association, . THINK >> Bias! If an observed association is not correct because a different (lurking) variable is associated with both the potential risk factor and the outcome, but it is not a causal factor itself, THINK >> Confounding! If an effect is real but the magnitude of the effect is different for different groups of individuals (e.g., males vs females or blacks vs whites). THINK >> Effect modification! Bias Resulting from Stu
of any sample taken from a larger population. Random error may affect the conclusions you draw from a study by affecting the precision of a descriptive study, or the power of an analytic study. However, although the magnitude of random error can be quantified to some degree, its direction cannot be predicted due to its random nature. Random errors can be accounted for to some degree through the application of inferential statistics when presenting and interpreting results. Precision The precision of an estimate is a measure of the 'repeatability' of this estimate. Therefore, it is a measure of the random error inherent in a sample, which in the case of descriptive studies is closely associated with the confidence interval. Confidence intervals Confidence intervals are commonly used in both descriptive studies and in analytic studies in order to indicate the precision of an estimate (whether it be a point prevalence estimate, a mean weight measurement or an odds ratio). Commonly a 95% confidence interval is used - this, simply put, quantifies the range of values which the investigator can be confident contains the true source population value. Therefore, an investigator would have greater confidence that a 99% confidence interval contains the true value than a 95% confidence interval. However, the correct interpretation of a confidence interval can be confusing, relating as it does to a hypothetical situation of repeated sampling. These issues can be better explained using a hypothetical example. Assuming a study is conducted to investigate the seroprevalence of Peste De Petits Ruminants virus in sheep in one region of an African country. A census of all animals could be conducted, which would allow the determination of the exact seroprevalence (assuming a perfect diagnostic test) - however, this is not logistically or financially viable, and therefore a sample of the sheep population is taken. We will assume that there is no bias at all in the sample, and that a simple random sampling protocol is used. The sample taken gives a point seroprevalence estimate of 30%, and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 20% to 40%. As such, we can be 95% confident that the true seroprevalence to PPRV in this region of the country is between 20% and 40% - no particular seroprevalence estimate within this range is any more or less likely than any other one. Despite this, there remains a small chance that the true seroprevalence lies o