1 / 42

Making sense of results - a workshop for healthcare librarians

Making sense of results - a workshop for healthcare librarians. Dr Amanda Burls 2 nd UK Clinical Librarian Conference. Objectives. To look at how results can be presented To understand what a meta-analysis is To be able to interpret a “blobbogram”

yaphet
Download Presentation

Making sense of results - a workshop for healthcare librarians

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Making sense of results- a workshop for healthcare librarians Dr Amanda Burls 2nd UK Clinical Librarian Conference

  2. Objectives • To look at how results can be presented • To understand what a meta-analysis is • To be able to interpret a “blobbogram” • To be able to make sense of tests for “statistical significance” • To explore how uncertainty in results can be summarised and understand: • P-values • Confidence intervals • To have fun!

  3. Making sense of results • How are results summarised?

  4. How many of you have attended a critical appraisal skills workshop? • What sort of study design were you appraising? • What are the key things you remember?

  5. Critical appraisal of any study design must consider • Validity • Can the study (results) be trusted? • Results • What are the results and how are they (or can they be) expressed? • Relevance • Do these results apply to the local context?

  6. Warning! • Everything I say from now onwards assumes that the results being considered come from an unbiased study!

  7. How are results summarised? • Most useful studies compare at least two alternatives. • How can the results of such comparisons be expressed?

  8. Expressing results:What did the study show? • Patients with backache: • 100 randomised to receive a firm mattress • 100 randomised to receive a medium mattress • After 3 months: • 80 get better in the firm mattress group • 20 get better in the medium mattress group • How would you summarise this for a friend?

  9. Summarise • 80 out of 100 (80%) better in firm mattress group • 20 out of 100 (20%) better in the medium mattress group • 4 times as likely to get better with a firm mattress • An extra 60% of people get better with a firm mattress

  10. How were the results summarised? • There are two basic ways to summarise results of studies that compare two or more groups: • Difference (take them away) • Ratio (divide)

  11. The blobbogram!

  12. Blobbogram Line of no difference between treatments less more

  13. Blobbogram - Difference (taking away) Line of no difference between treatments less more 0

  14. Blobbogram - ratio (dividing) Line of no difference between treatments less more 1

  15. A randomised placebo-controlled trial

  16. Well conducted RCT – no bias • Five people with backache received Potters • Five people received placebo • 4 out of 5 with Potters got better • 2 out of 5 with placebo got better

  17. No backache at 3 months(Results of our Potters tablet versus placebo trial) Potters Placebo Favours placebo Favours Potters

  18. No backache at 3 months(Results of our Potters tablet versus placebo trial) Potters Placebo Favours placebo Favours Potters

  19. No backache at 3 months(Results of our Potters tablet versus placebo trial) Potters Placebo Favours placebo Favours Potters

  20. No backache at 3 monthsDo you think this study proves Potters works? Potters Placebo Favours placebo Favours Potters

  21. It could be due to chance! • What if there had 1000 people in each arm and 800 got better with Potters and only 200 got better on placebo? • Would you believe Potters works now? • So how many people would you want in each arm to believe the trial?

  22. P-value in a nutshell

  23. The Null Hypothesis Uumm.....

  24. 1 0 So what does p=0.5 mean? So what does p=0.1 mean? So what does p=0.05 mean? Absolutely certain Impossible

  25. p = 0.5 • quite likely - evens chance - 50:50 - 1 in 2 p = 0.001 • very unlikely - 1 in 1000 p = 0.01 • unlikely - 1 in 100 p = 0.05 • fairly unlikely - 1 in 20 - 5 times in 100

  26. Moral: Any observed difference between two groups, no matter how small, can be made to be “statistically significant” - at any level of significance - by taking a sufficiently large sample.

  27. Question: How can we express uncertainty due to chance? • Answer: the p-value • But is there a better answer?

  28. Introduction to confidence intervals • CIs are a way of showing the uncertainty surrounding our point estimate.

  29. No backache at 3 months(Results of our Potters tablet versus placebo trial) Potters Placebo Favours placebo Favours Potters

  30. No backache at 3 months(Results of our Potters tablet versus placebo trial) Potters Placebo Favours placebo Favours Potters

  31. No backache at 3 months(Results of our Potters tablet versus placebo trial) Potters Placebo Favours placebo Favours Potters

  32. No backache at 3 months(Results of our Potters tablet versus placebo trial) Potters Placebo Favours placebo Favours Potters

  33. Clifton 1993 Clifton 1992 Hirayama 1994 Marion 1997 Total (95%CI) .1 .2 1 5 10 Hypothermia vs. control In severe head injury Mortality or incapacity (n=158) RR 0.63 (0.46, 0.87) RR

  34. Hypothermia vs. control In severe head injury Mortality or incapacity (n=158) Clifton 1993 Clifton 1992 Hirayama 1994 Marion 1997 RR 0.63 (0.46, 0.87) Total (95%CI) .1 .2 1 5 10 RR

  35. Hypothermia vs. control In severe head injury Mortality or incapacity (n=158) Clifton 1993 Clifton 1992 Hirayama 1994 Marion 1997 RR 0.63 (0.46, 0.87) Total (95%CI) .1 .2 1 5 10 Favours intervention RR Favours control

  36. Clifton 1993 Clifton 1992 Hirayama 1994 Marion 1997 Total (95%CI) .1 .2 1 5 10 Hypothermia vs. control In severe head injury Mortality or incapacity (n=158) RR 0.63 (0.46, 0.87) Favours intervention RR Favours control

More Related