Deans' stroke musings

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!Just think of all the trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 493 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
My back ground story is here:

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains

A great stroke association would go through all the stroke research and test out whether that research is reliable enough to be used for stroke interventions. But that won't occur because we have NO stroke leadership and fucking failures of stroke associations. I don't see how any stroke medical professional can hold their head up with all the incompetency that they are letting slip by in stroke.
Oops, once again not following Dale Carnegie, 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'.

Burn the place down - stroke associations


Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains 

Estelle Dumas-Mallet, Katherine S. Button, Thomas Boraud, Francois Gonon, Marcus R. Munafò


Studies with low statistical power increase the likelihood that a statistically significant finding represents a false positive result. We conducted a review of meta-analyses of studies investigating the association of biological, environmental or cognitive parameters with neurological, psychiatric and somatic diseases, excluding treatment studies, in order to estimate the average statistical power across these domains. Taking the effect size indicated by a meta-analysis as the best estimate of the likely true effect size, and assuming a threshold for declaring statistical significance of 5%, we found that approximately 50% of studies have statistical power in the 0–10% or 11–20% range, well below the minimum of 80% that is often considered conventional. Studies with low statistical power appear to be common in the biomedical sciences, at least in the specific subject areas captured by our search strategy. However, we also observe evidence that this depends in part on research methodology, with candidate gene studies showing very low average power and studies using cognitive/behavioural measures showing high average power. This warrants further investigation.

No comments:

Post a Comment