Case control studies in particular are prone to recall bias, people who are suffering from COPD might sometimes relate the ailment to marijuana usage in past and hence contrary to the control group, they are more able to describe to what extent they have been using the drug in the past.

As recommended, all the doctors should make sure that there practice is based on evidence and thus it is paramount that the doctors learn to appraise the paper in a critical manner i.e. ability to detect any potential source of bias.

Detection Bias: Outcomes are more looked for in one group than the other.

Observer Bias: Subjectivity of observers regarding the outcome.

Publication bias: Not publishing the results of a valid study just because they are negative or uninteresting can be termed as publication bias.

Recall bias: Recall bias is specifically appropriate to the case control studies that is when ever the memories retrieved by the participants differ in accuracy.

Response Bias: The participants that filled out the response forms containing information that was going to be used for a trial, don’t represent the target population.

Observation bias occurs when the behaviour of an individual changes that results from their awareness of being observed.

Recall bias introduced when participants in a study are systematically more or less likely to recall and relate information on exposure depending on their outcome status.

Attrition bias is a systematic error caused by unequal loss of participants from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In clinical trials, participants might dropout due to unsatisfactory treatment or efficacy, intolerable adverse events, or even death.

Selection bias introduced when the individuals are not chosen randomly to take a part in the study. It usually occurs when the research decides who is going to be studied, they are not the representative of the population.

Lead-time bias occurs when a disease is detected by a screening test at an earlier time point rather than it would have been diagnosed by its clinical appearance. In this bias, earlier detection improves the survival time in the intervention group.

A forest plot is a graphical representation that summarizes the findings of several research, such as a meta-analysis of a series of randomized controlled trials.

The Kaplan-Meier estimate shows survival over time, for example, plotting the number of patients still alive seven years after chemotherapy for lung cancer.

Fisher’s exact test similarly uses contingency tables to assess statistical significance, however, it is typically used when sample sizes are small.

Chi-square test assesses whether an association exists between two categorical variables using the observed and expected frequencies. For instance, is social class (I-V) related to body mass index (BMI) category? Using the observed and anticipated frequencies, the Chi-square test determines whether a connection exists between two categorical variables. For example, is socio-economic status related to BMI category?

Linear regression is a technique which attempts to model the relationship between two variables by fitting a linear equation to observed data. Linear regression uses correlation between two continuous variables. As correlation only indicates the strength of an association only, it cannot be used to forecast the change in one variable when a second variable is altered.

This equation takes the form y = mx + c, where ‘y’ is the dependent variable, ‘x’ is the independent variable, ‘m’ is the slope of the line and ‘c’ is the intercept. In this example, for a range of heights, it would be possible to map a line of best fit to a scatter plot and thus predict the forced expiratory volume (FEV1) for an individual.

ARR= (Risk factor associated with the new drug group) — (Risk factor associated with the currently available drug)

So,

ARR= (10/400)-(20/400)

ARR= 0.025-0.05

ARR= 0.025 (Numerical Value)

Randomized controlled trails will be analysed by the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach. It provides unbiased comparisons among the treatment groups. ITT analyses are done to avoid the effects of dropout, which may break the random assignment to the treatment groups in a study.

ITT analysis is a comparison of the treatment groups that includes all patients as originally allocated after randomization.

In order to include such participants in an analysis, outcome data could be imputed which involves making assumptions about the outcomes in the lost participants.

Number needed to treat (NNT) is a time specific epidemiological measure that indicates how many patients would be require for an intervention to prevent one additional bad outcome. A perfect NNT would be 1, where everyone improves with treatment, thus the higher the NNT, the less effective the treatment.

Thus if you treat 1000 patients then you will expect to have 50 fewer strokes.

Recall bias introduced when participants in a study are systematically more or less likely to recall and relate information on exposure depending on their outcome status.

In procedure bias, the researcher decides assignment of a treatment versus control and assigns particular patients to one group or the other non-randomly. This is unlikely to have occurred in this case, although it is not mentioned specifically.

Self Selection or volunteer bias occur when those subjects are selected to participate in the study who are not the representative of the entire target population. those subjects may be from high socio-economic status and practice those activities or lifestyle that improves their health.

Lead-time bias occurs when a disease is detected by a screening test at an earlier time point rather than it would have been diagnosed by its clinical appearance. In this bias, earlier detection improves the survival time in the intervention group.

Only on rare occasions has it been found that the prevalence and incidence were same. Incidence can be greater than prevalence in acute cases only. In case of chronic diseases prevalence is far greater than incidence. One needs to have a deeper understanding of both the concepts to understand the health literature.

Mean, also known as the average, is the most common measure of central tendency. It is the sum of all observed values divided by the number of observation. It is not useful for skewed data, which has an abnormal distribution. It is useful, instead, for numerical data that have symmetric distribution. It reflects the contributions of each data in the group, and are sensitive to outliers.

The median is the value that falls in the middle position when the observations are ranked in order from the smallest to the largest. If the number of observations is odd, the median is the middle number. If it is even, the median is the average of the two middle numbers. Unlike the mean, the median is useful on skewed data, and can be used for ordinal or numerical data if skewed.

The mode is the value that occurs with the greatest frequency in a set of observations, and is utilized for bimodal distribution.

The variance and the standard deviation are not measures of central tendency, but of dispersion.

Phase 0 trials assist the scientists in studying the behaviour of drugs in humans by micro dosing patients. They are used to speed up the developmental process. They have no measurable therapeutic effect and efficiency.

Since the data is normally distributed, 95% of the values lie with in the interval 70 to 90. This can be calculated as follows:

Interval= Mean ± ( 2 times standard deviation)
= 80 ± 2(5)
= 80 ± 10
= 70 & 90

The rest of the 5% are distributed symmetrically beyond 90 and below 70 which means 2.5% of the values lie above 90.

Phase IIa studies are usually pilot studies designed to demonstrate clinical efficacy or biological activity (‘proof of concept’ studies) whereas phase IIb studies determine the optimal dose at which the drug shows biological activity with minimal side-effects (definite dose-finding studies).

Phase III and Phase IV studies are performed on larger set of participants (usually hundreds to thousands) when safety and efficacy have been established.

Hypochondriasis is an illness anxiety disorder, and describes excessively worriedness about the presence of a disease. While the woman is concerned about her possibility of developing motor neurone disease, she understands that no symptoms have yet appeared. Hypochondriasis involves patients who refuse to accept that they don’t have the disease, even if the results come back negative.

Late Look Bias occurs when the data is gathered or analysed at an inappropriate time e.g. when many of the subjects suffering from a fatal disease have died. This type of biasness might occur in some retrospective studies of motor neurone disease, but is not applicable to this prospective study.

In procedure bias, the researcher decides assignment of a treatment versus control and assigns particular patients to one group or the other non-randomly. This is unlikely to have occurred in this case, although it is not mentioned specifically. Of all the options, lead time-bias is a better answer.

The Hawthorne Effect refers to groups modifying their behaviour simply because they are aware of being observed. Any differences in the behaviour have not been mentioned in the question, and it is highly unlikely that a change in patient’s behaviour would have affected their length of survival in this case.

The correct option is lead-time bias. Even if the new blood test diagnoses the disease earlier, it doesn’t affect the outcome, as the survival time was still on average 43 months from the onset of symptoms in both groups. With the help of blood test, the disease was only detected 8 months earlier.

This clinical trial consists over 1000 patients being evaluated for the response to a new treatment against a currently licensed treatment for ulcerative colitis. Therefore, it is comparing its efficacy to an established therapeutic or control in a larger population of volunteers. These are the characteristics of a phase III clinical trial.

Correlation doesn’t justify causality. Correlation coefficient gives us an idea whether or not the two parameters provide have any relation of some sort or not i.e. does change in one prompt any change in other? It has nothing to do with predictions. For that purpose linear regression is used.

Absolute risk reduction = (Control event rate) – (Experimental event rate)

Experimental event rate = 24 / 120 = 0.2

Control event rate = 60 / 240 = 0.25

Absolute risk reduction = 0.25 – 0.2 = 0.05 = 5% reduction

The degree of correlation is summarised by the correlation coefficient (r). This indicates how closely the points lie to a line drawn through the plotted data. In parametric data this is called Pearson’s correlation coefficient and can take any value between -1 to +1. A correlation of -1.0 indicates a perfect negative correlation, and a correlation of 1.0 indicates a perfect positive correlation.

For example

r = 1 – strong positive correlation (e.g. systolic blood pressure always increases with age)

r = 0 – no correlation (e.g. there is no correlation between systolic blood pressure and age)

r = – 1 – strong negative correlation (e.g. systolic blood pressure always decreases with age)

Whilst correlation coefficients give information about how one variable may increase or decrease as another variable increases they do not give information about how much the variable will change. They also do not provide information on cause and effect.

In contrast to the correlation coefficient, linear regression may be used to predict how much one variable changes when a second variable is changed.

The Delphi is a group facilitation technique that seeks to obtain consensus on the opinions of `experts’ through a series of structured questionnaires (commonly referred to as rounds). By using successive questionnaires, opinions are considered in a non-adversarial manner, with the current status of the groups’ collective opinion being repeatedly fed back. Studies employing the Delphi make use of individuals who have knowledge of the topic being investigated

Its known that 68.3% of the total values of a normally distributed variable are found within a range of 1 standard deviation from the mean which makes the range to be 4.3 to 4.9 mmol/L.

Level 1 – High-quality randomised controlled trial with statistically significant difference or no statistically significant difference but narrow confidence intervals (prospective controlled)

Level 2 – Prospective comparative study (prospective uncontrolled)

Level 3 – Case-control study, retrospective comparative study (retrospective controlled)

Level 4 – Case series (retrospective uncontrolled)

Level 5 – Expert opinion.

The dose-response curve plots the graph of the dose (drug concentration) versus the response. As doses increase, the response increment diminishes; finally, doses may be reached at which no further increase in response can be achieved. This relation between drug concentration and effect is traditionally described by a hyperbolic curve. When the x-axis is plotted in log scale, the graph yields a sigmoid curve.

Efficacy (Emax) and potency (EC50) can be derived from this curve. Emax is the maximal effect achievable, with increasing concentration of a drug. EC50 is the concentration of the drug, wherein half of the maximal effect is achieved.

When the graph is plotted using a log [response/1-response] against log dose, the sigmoid curve becomes a straight line (Hill plot). A graph that transforms from a straight line to exponential curve is mathematically incorrect. A graph that transforms from either a wash-in or wash-out exponential curve to a straight line comes from an initial set of data plotted against time, to a logarithmic transformation of the initial data set against time.

The positive predictive value is the ratio of patients truly diagnosed as positive to all those who had positive test results. In this case, this is 60/(60+20)=75%.

The negative predictive value is the ratio of patients truly diagnosed as negative to all those who had negative test results. In this case, this is 80/(80+40)=67%.

The sensitivity is the ratio of patients with the disease who test positive i.e. true positive patients to the total number of people with the disease. In this case, this is 60/(60+40)=60%.

The specificity is the ratio of people who don’t have the disease who test negative i.e. true negatives to the total number of people without the disease. In this case, this is 80/(20+80)=80%.

70% is not the result of any screening measurements

ARR= (Risk factor associated with the new drug group) — (Risk factor associated with the currently available drug)

So,

ARR= (24/120)-(60/240)

ARR= 0.2-0.25

ARR= 0.05 (Numerical Value)

ARR= 5%

The relationship between bacterial growth and time is a tear-away exponential. The mathematical relationship between y and x in this case is:

y = ex

Where: the power is x, and the base is e.

Euler’s number (e) is a mathematical constant that is the base for all logarithms occurring naturally. Its value is 2.718.

The statement X increasing with an increase in Y is proportional to Y refers to the change in y in terms of x when considering any exponential relationship.

This is not a build-up exponential, and that is mathematically stated as y = 1-e-kt.

The negative x axis being a horizontal asymptote and the y intercept being 0, 1 are examples of tearaway exponentials , but do not describe an exponential process.

Standard error can be calculated by the following formula:
Standard Error= (Standard Deviation)/√(Sample Size)
= (16) / √(100)
= 16 / 10
= 1.6

Attributable proportion is the proportion of disease that is caused due to exposure. It refers to the proportion of disease that would be eradicated from a particular population if the disease rate was diminished to match that of the unexposed group.

Risk ratio (relative risk) compares the probability of an event in an exposed (experimental) group to that of an event in the unexposed (control) group. Thus two are not the same.

The attributable risk is the rate of a disease in an exposed group to that of a group that has not been exposed to it i.e. how many deaths did the exposure cause.

Linear regression, using a technique called curve fitting, allows us to make predictions regarding a certain variable.

Correlation coefficient gives us an idea whether or not the two parameters provide have any relation of some sort or not i.e. does change in one prompt any change in other?

The hazard ratio (HR) is simply a comparison of two hazards in a study. It provides an estimate of the ratio of the hazard rates between the experimental group and a control group over the entire study duration. It is typically used when analysing survival over time, hence is the most suitable statistical method in this case.

An odds ratio is a statistic that quantifies the strength of the association between two events, A and B. It is the “measure of association” for a case-control study.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s correlation, for short) is a measure of the strength and direction of association that exists between two variables. An example would be if scientists wanted to evaluate the relationship between quality of certain population of rice and their genetic make-up.

Relative risk is the ratio of the risks for an event for the exposure group to the risks for the non-exposure group. Thus relative risk provides an increase or decrease in the likelihood of an event based on some exposure. Relative risk measures the association between the exposure and the outcome.

Absolute risk reduction is the number of percentage points your own risk goes down if you do a preventive act such as stop drinking alcohol. It depends on what your risk factors are to begin with.

Both incidence and prevalence are indicators of the disease frequency. While incidence tells us about the number of cases reported per population in a provided time period, prevalence is the factor you should be vigilant about as it tells us about the total number of cases that have been reported in a population at a particular point of time.

99.7% of the values within 3 standard deviations of the mean.

For 99.7% confidence interval, you can find the range as follows:

1. Multiply the standard error by 3.

2. Subtract the answer from mean value to get the lower limit.

3. Add the answer obtained in step 1 from the mean value to get the upper limit.

For a confidence interval of 68%, multiply the standard error with 1 and repeat the process. For a 95% confidence interval, Standard Error is multiplied by 1.96 to get the interval.