|
|
Enam Orang Temui Ajal Dalam Ujian Vaksin Covid-19 Pfizer
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Itu yg kita mau........ Pasni dia dah boleh gi kempen kalau ada PRK kat Sabah.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vaccine tu diberikan kat org yang dah mmg ada kobid ke? Kalau ye, kematian mungkin bukan disebabkan vaccine tapi sebab kobid tu sendiri. Without the vaccine pun org tu mmg dah kemungkinan tinggi utk mati sebab kobid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kita ada volunteer level pendekar ...ayuhhhh cuba |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tahap keberkesanan 95 peratus tapi self claim without peer review adalah sama spt owner produk timbang kilo overclaim product qupeteh blh putih pfffttttt... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Clinical versus statistical significance
Priya Ranganathan, C. S. Pramesh,1 and Marc Buyse2
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
Abstract
In clinical research, study results, which are statistically significant are often interpreted as being clinically important. While statistical significance indicates the reliability of the study results, clinical significance reflects its impact on clinical practice. The third article in this series exploring pitfalls in statistical analysis clarifies the importance of differentiating between statistical significance and clinical significance.
Keywords: Biostatistics, confidence intervals, data interpretation, statistical
One of the common problems faced by readers (and authors!) of medical articles is in the interpretation of the word “significance.” The term “statistical significance” is often misinterpreted as a “clinically important” result. The confusion stems from the fact that many people equate “significance” with its literal meaning of “importance,” whereas in statistics, it has a far more restrictive connotation. This article explains the idea of the statistical significance and differentiates it from clinical relevance or importance, which is an entirely different concept. In the previous article, in this series, we looked at different ways of expressing statistical significance (“P” values versus confidence intervals).[1] Measures of statistical significance quantify the probability of a study's results being due to chance.
Clinical significance, on the other hand, refers to the magnitude of the actual treatment effect (i.e., the difference between the intervention and control groups, also known as the “treatment effect size”), which will determine whether the results of the trial are likely to impact current medical practice. The “P” value, frequently used to measure statistical significance, is the probability that the study results are due to chance rather than to a real treatment effect. The conventional cut off for the “P” value to be considered statistically significant is of 0.05 (or 5%). What a P < 0.05 implies is that the possibility of the results in a study being due to chance is <5%.
In clinical practice, the “clinical significance” of a result is dependent on its implications on existing practice-treatment effect size being one of the most important factors that drives treatment decisions. LeFort suggests that the clinical significance should reflect “the extent of change, whether the change makes a real difference to subject lives, how long the effects last, consumer acceptability, cost-effectiveness, and ease of implementation”.[2] While there are established, traditionally accepted values for statistical significance testing, this is lacking for evaluating clinical significance.[3] More often than not, it is the judgment of the clinician (and the patient) which decides whether a result is clinically significant or not.
Statistical significance is heavily dependent on the study's sample size; with large sample sizes, even small treatment effects (which are clinically inconsequential) can appear statistically significant; therefore, the reader has to interpret carefully whether this “significance” is clinically meaningful. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology compared overall survival in 569 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who were randomised to receive erlotinib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone.[4] Median survival was found to be “significantly” prolonged in the erlotinib/gemcitabine arm (6.24 months vs. 5.91 months, P = 0.038). The P = 0.038 means that there is only a 3.8% chance that this observed difference between the groups occurred by chance (which is less than the traditional cut-off of 5%) and therefore, statistically significant. In this example, the clinical relevance of this “positive” study is the “treatment effect” or difference in median survival between 6.24 and 5.91 months – a mere 10 days, which most oncologists would agree is a clinically irrelevant “improvement” in outcomes, especially when considering the added toxicity and costs involved with the combination.
Most journals now endorse the use of the CONSORT statement for reporting of parallel-group randomized trials, which emphasizes the need for reporting of the estimated effect size and its precision (such as 95% confidence interval) for each primary and secondary outcome.[5] Readers should bear in mind that interpretation of study results should take into account the clinical significance by looking at the actual treatment effect (with confidence intervals) and should not just be based on “P” values and statistical significance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504060/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skerinyeeee{:dot
Y mati tu ada sebab lain ke?komplikasi apa2 ke..atau dia ada penyakit n bahan dlm vaksin tu xsesuai dgn dia? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
annehuda replied at 9-12-2020 05:10 PM
aku ni bkn saintis so kalau ade yg salah sila betulkan. ok imagine mcm ni, 100 org test subjek, ...
Iols pn rs mcm ni... tapi, iols x sure utk vaccine test ada melibatkan placebo test ke tak.... setahu iols placebo test ni lebih pd nk uji keberkesanan supplement je... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
annehuda replied at 9-12-2020 05:10 PM
aku ni bkn saintis so kalau ade yg salah sila betulkan. ok imagine mcm ni, 100 org test subjek, ...
herd immunity ke maksud u? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ni senarai kematian, tapi details setiap orang takde pulak jumpa.
Details of the 6 reported deaths among all enrolled participants include:
(SAE: serious adverse events)
1. One participant in the older BNT162b2 group experienced an SAE of arteriosclerosis and died 3 days after Dose 1.
2. One participant in the older BNT162b2 group experienced an SAE of cardiac arrest 60 days after Dose 2 and died 3 days later.
3. One participant in the younger placebo group experienced an SAE of unevaluable event (unknown of unknown origin; no additional information currently available at the time of this report) 8 days after Dose 1 and died the same day.
4. One participant in the older placebo group experienced an SAE of hemorrhagic stroke 15 days after Dose 2 and died the next day.
5. One participant in the younger placebo group experienced an SAE of death (cause unknown; no additional information currently available at the time of this report) 34 days after Dose 2.
6. One participant in the older placebo group experienced an SAE of myocardial infarction 16 days after Dose 1 and died the same day.
Older > 56 years; younger < 55 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APA ni Kopipes benang Aku hah ?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
syadq replied at 9-12-2020 08:09 PM
Ni senarai kematian, tapi details setiap orang takde pulak jumpa.
Details of the 6 reported dea ...
Mcm affect jantung jee vaksin ni.
@sarah82 betul kan..mcm affect jantung vaksin ni tgk dr segi kematian..ai xtaw sgt medic..terpaksa tag sarah. Hehehehe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
salmon-suki replied at 9-12-2020 08:24 PM
Mcm affect jantung jee vaksin ni.
@sarah82 betul kan..mcm affect jantung vaksin ni tgk dr segi k ...
iols lagi la tak tau...iols background IT...hahahaha.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
placebo group tu depa bagi vaccine ape
sebab placebo group bukan target vaccine itu lah punca
then the two participants tu ade SAE - well ini tak dapat dielakkan lah takkan nak marah vaccine tu , kalau SAE memang itu risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download
u know ade dua studies
BI...tu yg study human trial
satu lagi
CXXXXX - ini trial study proper - enrolling 44 000
so yg kematian tu first study tu BXXX , u knw N = 60
wow , hmm......i wonder why ye participants in study B ( human trial tu ) N = 60 ni...
cer tengok link ni
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sarah82 replied at 9-12-2020 08:32 PM
iols lagi la tak tau...iols background IT...hahahaha..
Ekk?hahahah .igtkan sarah medic..sbb jaga tok tu..mcm nurse private..hikhikhik..kena tag doc @ipes lah mcm ni..hehehe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Placebo hanya mengandungi saline (page 12). Maybe individual health issues.
Ni laporan 53 page tu FDA vaccine document
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
salmon-suki replied at 9-12-2020 08:44 PM
Ekk?hahahah .igtkan sarah medic..sbb jaga tok tu..mcm nurse private..hikhikhik..kena tag doc @ipes ...
nope..IT...hahahahahaha lepas tu beralih jadi caregiver...ni pun belajar dari pemerhatian dan tips2 dari nurse terlatih. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yg diletak vaksin tu org sihat xde covid ke, or org yg dijangkiti covid. klu yg mati tu mmg dh ada covid, belum pasti musabab nye vaksin. tp klu yg sihat diujikaji, mati , sesuatu le. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks , I will look at it insya ALLAH
tengah sibuk sikit la ni... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sambaldurian replied at 9-12-2020 08:48 PM
yg diletak vaksin tu org sihat xde covid ke, or org yg dijangkiti covid. klu yg mati tu mmg dh ada c ...
yg di cucuk vaksin tu bukan kat pesakit2 covid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 9-12-2020 05:13 PM
