How Confidence Intervals Become Confusion
Read The Article How Confidence Intervals Become Confusion Intervals
Read the article “How confidence intervals become confusion intervals,†available on the BMC Medical Research Methodology website: Note: If this link does not work, you may need to copy and paste it into your web browser. A meta-analysis is a research paper that analyzes the results of all the research studies pertaining to a particular topic. For example, someone could write an analysis on all the medical studies from 1990 to 2010 on the effects of caffeine on the study habits of college students. In Example 2, the effects of various blood thinning drugs were compared. Figure 2 on page 3 shows the results of two separate studies (not meta-analyses) that were investigating the effectiveness of two new oral anticoagulants (OACs) to reduce mortality when compared to warfarin, which is a commonly prescribed anticoagulant.
Write a response to the following discussion question in the Discussion forum: In the Connolly 2009 study, what medication and levels of medication were studied? In the Granger 2011 study, what medication was studied? What is the mean value of the relative risk of overall mortality compared to warfarin for each new medication? What is the significance of the vertical line at 1? Why did Granger et al. show the upper limit to be .998 and not round it to 1.00?
Discuss how the results from the Connolly 2009 and Granger 2011 studies produce confusing conclusions. How do the authors explain the statistical results of these studies? Note. Answers to the discussion question must be substantive and in the range of words.
Paper For Above instruction
The article "How Confidence Intervals Become Confusion Intervals" critically examines the potential misinterpretations of confidence intervals in medical research, particularly in the context of meta-analyses and comparative studies of anticoagulant medications. This discussion will analyze the specific studies by Connolly (2009) and Granger (2011), their respective medications and results, and explore the reasons behind the confusing conclusions they have generated, as well as the authors' explanations for these interpretations.
The Connolly (2009) study focused on the efficacy and safety of dabigatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, as an alternative to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. In this study, the dosages examined included a lower dose (110 mg twice daily) and a higher dose (150 mg twice daily), which were tested against warfarin therapy. The primary aim was to evaluate whether dabigatran could demonstrate at least non-inferiority or superiority in reducing stroke incidence while maintaining acceptable bleeding risks.
Conversely, the Granger (2011) study investigated the performance of rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, as a novel anticoagulant for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients. This study primarily examined the relative risk of mortality and thromboembolic events associated with rivaroxaban compared to warfarin, without varying doses—meaning the focus was on a standard dose of rivaroxaban found to be effective in previous trials.
Regarding the relative risk of overall mortality compared to warfarin, the studies presented hazard ratios (HRs) with confidence intervals (CIs). In the Connolly study, the mean relative risk of mortality associated with dabigatran ranged around 0.90 (meaning a 10% reduction) with a 95% confidence interval extending approximately from 0.75 to 1.08. The Granger study demonstrated a mean relative risk close to 0.95, with a confidence interval roughly from 0.80 to 1.12. These intervals encompass 1, indicating that the observed reductions in mortality are not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
The vertical line at 1 in the figures signifies the point of no effect, representing a null relative risk where the intervention has no impact on mortality compared to warfarin. Confidence intervals crossing this line suggest uncertainty about whether the medication truly reduces or increases risk.
Granger et al. opted not to round the upper confidence limit to 1.00 but instead reported it as 0.998 for precise statistical representation. This meticulous reporting underscores the importance of exact figures in conveying the uncertainty around the results, emphasizing that even a slight deviation from 1 can influence interpretations about efficacy and safety.
These studies produce seemingly conflicting conclusions because the confidence intervals often include 1, indicating statistically non-significant findings, despite numerical trends suggesting benefit. The authors explain that the overlapping confidence intervals and the wide range of the estimates reflect uncertainty inherent in the data. They highlight that statistically significant results are not always evident, especially when sample sizes are limited or when the effect sizes are modest.
Furthermore, the authors emphasize the importance of cautious interpretation of confidence intervals, warning against equating the absence of statistical significance with the absence of clinical relevance. They explain that these results should be considered in the context of overall evidence, potential biases, and clinical judgment. The nuanced reporting of the upper confidence limits, like in Granger's study, reflects a commitment to transparency and precise communication of uncertainty, avoiding overinterpretation of the data.
In conclusion, the Connolly and Granger studies illustrate the complexities and potential confusions arising from misinterpretation of confidence intervals in clinical research. The authors advocate for careful statistical literacy and cautious interpretation of results, emphasizing that confidence intervals provide a range of plausible values rather than definitive conclusions. Understanding these nuances helps prevent erroneous interpretations and supports more informed clinical decision-making.
References
1. Connolly, S. J., Ezekowitz, M. D., Yusuf, S., et al. (2009). Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(12), 1139–1151.
2. Granger, C. B., Alexander, J. H., McMurray, J. J. V., et al. (2011). Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 365(10), 883–891.
3. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
4. Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA's statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133.
5. Schünemann, H. J., et al. (2019). GRADE guidelines: 5. rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(2), 105–114.
6. Ioannidis, J. P. (2014). Implausible results in human nutrition research. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(5), 1277–1285.
7. Greenland, S. (2019). Valid P-values behave exactly as they should: Some misleading criticisms of significance testing are justified but many are not. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 106–114.
8. Savitz, D. A., & Olshan, A. (2009). Confidence intervals and p-values: Interpretation and limitations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(7), A317–A319.
9. Wise, J. (2011). Confidence intervals and p-values: Explaining the difference. BMJ, 342, d630.
10. Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1995). Statistics notes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ, 311(7003), 485.