Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik: Klinische Studien lesen und verstehen

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik: Klinische Studien lesen und verstehen. / Labenz, J.; Kunz, Cornelia U.
In: Der Anaesthesist, Vol. 60, No. 1, 01.2011, p. 79-89; quiz 90.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Labenz, J & Kunz, CU 2011, 'Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik: Klinische Studien lesen und verstehen', Der Anaesthesist, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 79-89; quiz 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-010-1840-5

APA

Labenz, J., & Kunz, C. U. (2011). Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik: Klinische Studien lesen und verstehen. Der Anaesthesist, 60(1), 79-89; quiz 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-010-1840-5

Vancouver

Labenz J, Kunz CU. Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik: Klinische Studien lesen und verstehen. Der Anaesthesist. 2011 Jan;60(1):79-89; quiz 90. doi: 10.1007/s00101-010-1840-5

Author

Labenz, J. ; Kunz, Cornelia U. / Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik : Klinische Studien lesen und verstehen. In: Der Anaesthesist. 2011 ; Vol. 60, No. 1. pp. 79-89; quiz 90.

Bibtex

@article{77b79e8ce2f145c3a7e2ae0c28f61938,
title = "Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik: Klinische Studien lesen und verstehen",
abstract = "Clinical trials test hypotheses that are accepted or rejected according to a predetermined probability of error (level of significance). Significance does not however mean relevance. Good parameters of relevance are absolute risk reduction and based on this the calculation of the number of patients who need to be treated for one additional patient to benefit. The randomized controlled trial is the gold standard for comparative evaluation of effects. In the ideal scenario it is designed so that a difference established by statistical methods becomes probable. In non-inferiority studies care should be taken that no equivalence is shown but rather that the difference is not greater than a predefined margin of error for differences. Meta-analyses of studies with similar endpoints have the potential to improve the level of evidence. Since the findings of meta-analyses depend on the studies included, critical assessment of the results is essential.",
keywords = "Clinical Trials as Topic, Confidence Intervals, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic, Endpoint Determination, Evidence-Based Medicine, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Probability, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Retrospective Studies, Review Literature as Topic, Risk Assessment, Risk Reduction Behavior, Statistics as Topic",
author = "J. Labenz and Kunz, {Cornelia U.}",
year = "2011",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1007/s00101-010-1840-5",
language = "German",
volume = "60",
pages = "79--89; quiz 90",
journal = "Der Anaesthesist",
issn = "1432-055X",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Das ABC der medizinischen Statistik

T2 - Klinische Studien lesen und verstehen

AU - Labenz, J.

AU - Kunz, Cornelia U.

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Clinical trials test hypotheses that are accepted or rejected according to a predetermined probability of error (level of significance). Significance does not however mean relevance. Good parameters of relevance are absolute risk reduction and based on this the calculation of the number of patients who need to be treated for one additional patient to benefit. The randomized controlled trial is the gold standard for comparative evaluation of effects. In the ideal scenario it is designed so that a difference established by statistical methods becomes probable. In non-inferiority studies care should be taken that no equivalence is shown but rather that the difference is not greater than a predefined margin of error for differences. Meta-analyses of studies with similar endpoints have the potential to improve the level of evidence. Since the findings of meta-analyses depend on the studies included, critical assessment of the results is essential.

AB - Clinical trials test hypotheses that are accepted or rejected according to a predetermined probability of error (level of significance). Significance does not however mean relevance. Good parameters of relevance are absolute risk reduction and based on this the calculation of the number of patients who need to be treated for one additional patient to benefit. The randomized controlled trial is the gold standard for comparative evaluation of effects. In the ideal scenario it is designed so that a difference established by statistical methods becomes probable. In non-inferiority studies care should be taken that no equivalence is shown but rather that the difference is not greater than a predefined margin of error for differences. Meta-analyses of studies with similar endpoints have the potential to improve the level of evidence. Since the findings of meta-analyses depend on the studies included, critical assessment of the results is essential.

KW - Clinical Trials as Topic

KW - Confidence Intervals

KW - Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic

KW - Endpoint Determination

KW - Evidence-Based Medicine

KW - Humans

KW - Meta-Analysis as Topic

KW - Probability

KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

KW - Research Design

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Review Literature as Topic

KW - Risk Assessment

KW - Risk Reduction Behavior

KW - Statistics as Topic

U2 - 10.1007/s00101-010-1840-5

DO - 10.1007/s00101-010-1840-5

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 21264653

VL - 60

SP - 79-89; quiz 90

JO - Der Anaesthesist

JF - Der Anaesthesist

SN - 1432-055X

IS - 1

ER -