Evidence-based Clinical Practice – Full course summary (UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM)
- 2189 reads
There are three important questions when assessing the relationship between variables:
The practical significance (i.e. clinical significance) can be assessed by considering factors such as clinical benefit (1), cost (2) and side effects (3). In order to assess the practical significance, the strength of the association (i.e. ‘r’) (1), magnitude of the difference between the difference between treatment and comparison (i.e. ‘d’) (2) and measures of risk potency (3) can be used. Risk potency can be assessed using the odds ratio (1), risk ratio (2), relative risk reduction (3), risk difference (4) and number needed to treat (5).
The p-value refers to the probability that the found outcome or more extreme is found, given that the null hypothesis is true. It is possible to have statistical significance by chance and outcomes with lower p-values are sometimes interpreted as having stronger effect sizes. A non-significant result also does not tell us anything about the truth of the null hypothesis.
There are several different effect size measures:
This standard is relative and it should be noted that ‘larger than typical’ should be used rather than ‘large’. However, it might be best to find information about typical effect sizes in the context of a particular research field.
The disadvantages to the ‘d’ and the ‘r’ as measures of clinical significance are that they are relatively abstract (1), they were not intended as measures of clinical significance (2) and they are not readily interpretable in terms of how much individuals are affected by treatment (3).
There is no consensus on the externally provided standards for the clinical significance of treatments. Clinical significance could be defined as a change to normal functioning due Phi is not a good measure for clinical significance.
When continuous data are dichotomized (e.g. success or failure), there is a loss of information (1), it can result in arbitrary effect size indexes (2) and it can result in inconsistent effect size indexes (3), mostly due to different choices for the cut-off point of failure.
A limitation of the odds ratio is that the magnitude of the odds ratio may approach infinity if the outcome is very rare or very common. This can also happen if the outcome is near random. The magnitude of the cut-off point varies strongly with the choice of cut-point. Therefore, the interpretation of the odds-ratio is arbitrary and very difficult.
The risk ratio is obtained by dividing the failure or success rate of the comparison group by the failure or success rate of the treatment group. The choice of cut-off point changes the magnitude of the risk ratio which makes it difficult to interpret.
Relative risk reduction is computed by subtracting the treatment group failure rate from the comparison group failure rate and dividing it by the comparison group failure rate or by using the success rates. There are no agreed upon standards for assessing the magnitude of this.
Risk difference is computed by subtracting the percentage of failures in the treatment group from the percentage of failures in the comparison group or by using the successes. The risk difference is often near zero when the odds ratio and the risk ratios are very large.
Number needed to treat refers to the number of patients who must be treated to generate one more success or one less failure than would have resulted if all people had been given the comparison treatment. In risk studies, NNT is the number who would need to be exposed to the risk factor to generate one more case than if none had been exposed. NNT can only be interpreted relative to the comparison.
AUC represents the probability that a randomly selected subject in the treatment group has a better result than one in the comparison group. AUC can be computed by using clinical judgement alone.
Join with a free account for more service, or become a member for full access to exclusives and extra support of WorldSupporter >>
This bundle gives a full overview of the course "Evidence-based Clinical Practice" given at the University of Amsterdam. It contains both the articles and the lectures. The following is included:
This bundle contains an overview of all the articles used in the course "Evidence-based Clinical Practice." given at the University of Amsterdam. It contains the following articles:
There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.
Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?
Main summaries home pages:
Main study fields:
Business organization and economics, Communication & Marketing, Education & Pedagogic Sciences, International Relations and Politics, IT and Technology, Law & Administration, Medicine & Health Care, Nature & Environmental Sciences, Psychology and behavioral sciences, Science and academic Research, Society & Culture, Tourisme & Sports
Main study fields NL:
JoHo can really use your help! Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world
2207 |
Add new contribution