Marty
Well-known member
There are lies, damn lies, and.......statistics. Al what about that man you mentioned a few years ago from India (?) who had a St. Jude mechanical for 30 years was still going strong and never took warfarin!
Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:
P
PapaHappyStar
Here it is:
This is true:
Think of an arbitrary positive number. Flip a coin you will eventually get this number of heads in a row.
Basically the problem with the study above is they are trying to interpret a result that has many variables with the shape above, thats also the problem with the calculation I posted.
So the calculation is not completely valid but should be a far better approximation to the way things are than looking at a single case.
Re: statistical lies....
an extreme example: I never let my son cross the small street in front of our house. Cars pass only about twice an hour and it takes just 5 seconds to run across so the chances of him getting hit are 1/720 -- so if he runs across just once a week he wont get hit in 720 weeks i.e. around 14 years by which time he will be grown so I should let him run across when he really wants to -- right?
One can lie with statistics but thats true about almost any way of communication, with statistics its harder to lie but harder to discern their degree of truth as well sometimes.
This is true:
Think of an arbitrary positive number. Flip a coin you will eventually get this number of heads in a row.
Basically the problem with the study above is they are trying to interpret a result that has many variables with the shape above, thats also the problem with the calculation I posted.
So the calculation is not completely valid but should be a far better approximation to the way things are than looking at a single case.
Re: statistical lies....
an extreme example: I never let my son cross the small street in front of our house. Cars pass only about twice an hour and it takes just 5 seconds to run across so the chances of him getting hit are 1/720 -- so if he runs across just once a week he wont get hit in 720 weeks i.e. around 14 years by which time he will be grown so I should let him run across when he really wants to -- right?
One can lie with statistics but thats true about almost any way of communication, with statistics its harder to lie but harder to discern their degree of truth as well sometimes.
Johnny Stephens
Well-known member
We need a study to examine how much time you would add to your life if you read all the studies relevant to your condition. Wouldn't it be ironic if it was less than the amount of time you spent doing all the reading?
Facts vs Information
Facts vs Information
The thoughts posted don't at all say to ignore facts, nor to listen only to opinion. And solipsism (believing that oneself is the only truly verifiable thing in the universe) would be entirely missing the point.
The post is to bring consideration to what a "fact" or result is, relative to study statistics. "Facts" are data bits, and do not stand on their own. Like words, they have many meanings, quantifiable only within context. When the meanings behind the facts (results) are misinterpreted, then facts are rendered worse than opinions, as they are unduly weighted with acceptance.
What we actually seek from studies is information, not facts. Information is usable truths. Information is facts in context.
From the post: "We frequently only look at a summary of their results, denying ourselves the context of the numbers given, and thus some of their meaning. As such, it makes sense to temper our reactions as much as possible, in relation to what we really know about the genesis of the numeric outcomes."
It's not that studies do not allow good and useful information to be derived from their results (facts). But facts are not information until they have been successfully interpreted. Moreover, it's possible there's even more good information in the study notes that Burair kindly published for us than there is in the study numbers themselves - especially regarding personal risk profiles - because of interpretation.
The point is to determine what the data in the summary actually mean to us. From the post: "Try to look at studies insofar as they reasonably relate to your own, personal circumstance."
There is limited value to a newly-implanted 75-year-old gnawing at himself over the stroke statistics for valves that have been implanted for 40 years. There is also no good to a 50-year-old mitral implantee being shocked and upset by a statistic that is weighted toward the worst case, due to the inclusion of many candidates who have much higher risk profiles than she has. That "fact" (result) is not accurate for her, and isn't intended to be, based on the notes attached and the process followed to conduct the study.
A summation of this stance would be to look at the study results, then at all the notes that accompany the study. The conclusion is:
(Result table): These results are true...
(Accompanying notes): ...as long as you take into account all these other things we are listing, and maybe some other stuff we haven't thought of yet.
The second part of the sentence is the interpretation, and it is absolutely critical to the value of the first part.
Best wishes,
Facts vs Information
The thoughts posted don't at all say to ignore facts, nor to listen only to opinion. And solipsism (believing that oneself is the only truly verifiable thing in the universe) would be entirely missing the point.
The post is to bring consideration to what a "fact" or result is, relative to study statistics. "Facts" are data bits, and do not stand on their own. Like words, they have many meanings, quantifiable only within context. When the meanings behind the facts (results) are misinterpreted, then facts are rendered worse than opinions, as they are unduly weighted with acceptance.
What we actually seek from studies is information, not facts. Information is usable truths. Information is facts in context.
From the post: "We frequently only look at a summary of their results, denying ourselves the context of the numbers given, and thus some of their meaning. As such, it makes sense to temper our reactions as much as possible, in relation to what we really know about the genesis of the numeric outcomes."
It's not that studies do not allow good and useful information to be derived from their results (facts). But facts are not information until they have been successfully interpreted. Moreover, it's possible there's even more good information in the study notes that Burair kindly published for us than there is in the study numbers themselves - especially regarding personal risk profiles - because of interpretation.
The point is to determine what the data in the summary actually mean to us. From the post: "Try to look at studies insofar as they reasonably relate to your own, personal circumstance."
There is limited value to a newly-implanted 75-year-old gnawing at himself over the stroke statistics for valves that have been implanted for 40 years. There is also no good to a 50-year-old mitral implantee being shocked and upset by a statistic that is weighted toward the worst case, due to the inclusion of many candidates who have much higher risk profiles than she has. That "fact" (result) is not accurate for her, and isn't intended to be, based on the notes attached and the process followed to conduct the study.
A summation of this stance would be to look at the study results, then at all the notes that accompany the study. The conclusion is:
(Result table): These results are true...
(Accompanying notes): ...as long as you take into account all these other things we are listing, and maybe some other stuff we haven't thought of yet.
The second part of the sentence is the interpretation, and it is absolutely critical to the value of the first part.
Best wishes,
L
liamty
If we listened to the statistics then I would have buried Steve 3 years ago. I did not (although sometimes I wish I had!!!).
23 years ago he was told he would out live most people!!! Even then I think the Drs were optimists, as the insight and knowledge was so basic they did not know enough to make an accurate judgement, just a guestament I think. However over the past 23 years so much has progressed and we have learned so much about looking after out health that we are prolonging the lifetime of the valves. Steves valve is one of the oldies but is still ticking along ok.
If we talk in statistics are the chances of stroke much higher if you have had vr than if you have no heart problem at all??? Probably not much different I'd guess because at least we are all aware of risks and danger and therefore lower our own chances.
23 years ago he was told he would out live most people!!! Even then I think the Drs were optimists, as the insight and knowledge was so basic they did not know enough to make an accurate judgement, just a guestament I think. However over the past 23 years so much has progressed and we have learned so much about looking after out health that we are prolonging the lifetime of the valves. Steves valve is one of the oldies but is still ticking along ok.
If we talk in statistics are the chances of stroke much higher if you have had vr than if you have no heart problem at all??? Probably not much different I'd guess because at least we are all aware of risks and danger and therefore lower our own chances.
R
RWS
Wow, after reading all the posts in this thread, and the links, I would say there is 80% chance I will drink more than one glass of wine tonight????
