<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics: Collective Statistical Illiteracy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://e-patients.net/archives/2008/11/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-collective-statistical-illiteracy.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://e-patients.net/archives/2008/11/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-collective-statistical-illiteracy.html</link>
	<description>because health professionals can&#039;t do it alone</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:22:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Terrorized by the &#8216;War on Cancer&#8217; &#124; e-Patients.net</title>
		<link>http://e-patients.net/archives/2008/11/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-collective-statistical-illiteracy.html/comment-page-1#comment-48808</link>
		<dc:creator>Terrorized by the &#8216;War on Cancer&#8217; &#124; e-Patients.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-patients.net/?p=697#comment-48808</guid>
		<description>[...] issue is of course the general lack of statistical literacy, as we wrote in the e-patients blog here and there. As a report said &#8220;Statistical literacy is a necessary precondition for [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] issue is of course the general lack of statistical literacy, as we wrote in the e-patients blog here and there. As a report said &#8220;Statistical literacy is a necessary precondition for [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: I Am &#8220;A Nobody &#38; A Nothing&#8221; &#38; I&#8217;m Proud Of It! &#124; e-Patients.net</title>
		<link>http://e-patients.net/archives/2008/11/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-collective-statistical-illiteracy.html/comment-page-1#comment-11396</link>
		<dc:creator>I Am &#8220;A Nobody &#38; A Nothing&#8221; &#38; I&#8217;m Proud Of It! &#124; e-Patients.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-patients.net/?p=697#comment-11396</guid>
		<description>[...] the study results were unclear and another example of statistical illiteracy [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the study results were unclear and another example of statistical illiteracy [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah Greene</title>
		<link>http://e-patients.net/archives/2008/11/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-collective-statistical-illiteracy.html/comment-page-1#comment-1365</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah Greene</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-patients.net/?p=697#comment-1365</guid>
		<description>Statistics are well-reported in Tara Parker-Pope&#039;s Well column on Tuesday, wrt to the Jupiter study on statins (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/18well.html?ref=health).  Quoting:

&quot;Only 1.8 percent of the subjects who took a placebo had a major cardiovascular problem during the study period. Among statin users, 0.9 percent did. In other words, the absolute risk of a serious cardiovascular problem (as opposed to the relative risk) was reduced by less than one percentage point.

“Absolute differences in risk are more clinically important than relative reductions in risk in deciding whether to recommend drug therapy,” The New England Journal of Medicine noted in an editorial accompanying a report on the study.

An important indicator of the usefulness of a drug is the “number needed to treat,” a measure of how many people needed to take a pill for just one person to be helped. There is disagreement about what Jupiter showed. The New England Journal editorial concluded that treating 120 people for about two years would help one person. The study authors, using different criteria, came up with a figure of 95.

Some researchers think the number is actually much lower. Extrapolating the data to five years, the study’s authors concluded that just 25 healthy people would need to take a statin to prevent one serious heart problem.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Statistics are well-reported in Tara Parker-Pope&#8217;s Well column on Tuesday, wrt to the Jupiter study on statins (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/18well.html?ref=health" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/18well.html?ref=health</a>).  Quoting:</p>
<p>&#8220;Only 1.8 percent of the subjects who took a placebo had a major cardiovascular problem during the study period. Among statin users, 0.9 percent did. In other words, the absolute risk of a serious cardiovascular problem (as opposed to the relative risk) was reduced by less than one percentage point.</p>
<p>“Absolute differences in risk are more clinically important than relative reductions in risk in deciding whether to recommend drug therapy,” The New England Journal of Medicine noted in an editorial accompanying a report on the study.</p>
<p>An important indicator of the usefulness of a drug is the “number needed to treat,” a measure of how many people needed to take a pill for just one person to be helped. There is disagreement about what Jupiter showed. The New England Journal editorial concluded that treating 120 people for about two years would help one person. The study authors, using different criteria, came up with a figure of 95.</p>
<p>Some researchers think the number is actually much lower. Extrapolating the data to five years, the study’s authors concluded that just 25 healthy people would need to take a statin to prevent one serious heart problem.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics - World of Psychology</title>
		<link>http://e-patients.net/archives/2008/11/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-collective-statistical-illiteracy.html/comment-page-1#comment-1339</link>
		<dc:creator>Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics - World of Psychology</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-patients.net/?p=697#comment-1339</guid>
		<description>[...] Read Gilles Frydman&#8217;s entry: Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics: Collective Statistical Illiteracy [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Read Gilles Frydman&#8217;s entry: Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics: Collective Statistical Illiteracy [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
