China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Basic Longitudinal Analysis Approaches for Continuous and Categorical Variables
Published in Jason T. Newsom, Richard N. Jones, Scott M. Hofer, Longitudinal Data Analysis, 2013
A simple example where a McNemar test might be used is a yes–no response question asked at two points in time to the same group of respondents. Note that this example differs from the traditional chi-square test, which compares responses on a yes–no questions in two groups (e.g., to compare whether more women than men favor a ballot measure). The McNemar test is given by the following equation:
Sexual Dysfunction in HIV-Seropositive Women Without AIDS
Published in Michael W. Ross, HIV/AIDS and Sexuality, 2012
George R. Brown, Sarah Kendall, Rebecca Ledsky
Paired statistical comparisons were made between the prevalences of psychiatric diagnoses at T1 and T2, and at T2 and T3 for those women who were evaluated at each of the three time points (fourth and fifth evaluations were excluded from quantitative analysis due to limited sample size). The McNemar test was used in comparisons of these categorical variables (diagnoses) that cannot be assumed to be independent at two points in time (Harris, 1985). The following equation was used in the application of McNemar’s test:
Nonparametric Statistics
Published in Daryl S. Paulson, Applied Statistical Designs for the Researcher, 2003
The McNemar test is exclusively a two-tail test (Table 7). The basic model of the McNemar test is that of comparing two groups (xA and xB) under two conditions (0 and 1) to measure proportions of items or subjects with the test characteristics of interest. Here P1 is the proportion of test items with the characteristics of interest under one condition and P2 is the proportion of test items with the characteristics of interest under the other condition.
Curcuma longa and Boswellia serrata extract combination for hand osteoarthritis: an open-label pre-post trial
Published in Pharmaceutical Biology, 2022
Yves Henrotin, Yvan Dierckxsens, Gaëlle Delisse, Nathalie Maes, Adelin Albert
The statistical analysis was carried out on all eligible intention-to-treat patients enrolled in the study. Only patients with a history of treatment with a curcumin food supplement, patients who received concomitant treatments with Symptomatic Slow Acting Drugs (SYSADOA), corticosteroids, or other turmeric-based products during the study, as well as patients for whom no evaluation of the pain was recorded, were excluded from the study. Results were expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) or as the median and interquartile range (IQR) for quantitative variables and as frequency tables for categorical variables. The numbers of areas affected in the left and right hands were compared by Student’s paired t-test. Scores before and after treatment were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired observations. The McNemar test was used to compare paired proportions. Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyse the evolution of pain scores over time and to test the effect of patient baseline characteristics on treatment response. Ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the impact of patient and pain characteristics on treatment satisfaction. Results were expressed as regression coefficients with their standard error (SE) Statistical calculations were always based on the maximum number of observations available. Missing values were not replaced or imputed. Results were considered significant at the 5% level (p < 0.05). All analyses were performed using SAS statistical software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, NC), and R version 3.6.1.
Prospective study of Na[18F]F PET/CT for cancer staging in morbidly obese patients compared with [99mTc]Tc-MDP whole-body planar, SPECT and SPECT/CT
Published in Acta Oncologica, 2022
Sharjeel Usmani, Najeeb Ahmed, Gopinath Gnanasegaran, Fareeda Al kandari, Fahad Marafi, Ahmed Bani-Mustafa, Ahmed Musbah, Maryam Jassem Almashmoum, Tim Van den Wyngaert
Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, PLR, NLR, and accuracy were calculated based on the results of the reference standard, together with exact 95% confidence intervals (CI). A weighted generalized score method and an omnibus Wald test were used to compare the overall test characteristics between imaging modalities [19]. A pairwise comparison of individual test characteristics was performed using the McNemar test when significant differences were identified. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis, with an “optimistic” and “pessimistic” analysis, was performed separately for the imaging modalities and the values compared using DeLong’s test [20]. Analyses were performed using the "compbdt", "mada", "meta", and "ROCit" commands in R (version 4.1.0) programming language [21]. A Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment for false discovery rate was applied to the p-values for all pairwise comparisons of Na[18F]F with [99mTc]Tc-MDP using a threshold of 5% to account for multiple testing [22]. Other comparisons are reported as nominal p-values. All tests were two-sided with significance at p ≤ .05.
Developing locoregional evidence through comparison of WHO and national maternal near miss criteria: a cross sectional study experience from low resource setting
Published in Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2022
Poloju Pragnia, Aashima Arora, Amol N. Patil, Pooja Sikka, Vanita Jain, Vanita Suri
A total of 200 MNM women (91.34%) agreed to participate in the study over the span of 12 month out of 219 women approached. Mean age of the study participants was 27 years (with S.D. = 4.9 years). Adherence to minimum four ANC visits as per the WHO guidelines was observed among two-third (n = 134; 67%) of study participants. Out of 200 near-miss women identified, 133 women (66.5%) fulfilled both the WHO and GOI criteria. Out of the remaining 67 women (33.5%), 34 women fulfilled the GOI near miss criteria but not the WHO criteria and 33 women fulfilled the WHO but not GOI criteria. The success rate was almost identical with MNM identification rate of 83.5% with GOI and 83% with WHO criteria (Table 1). Almost two-third MNM cases (62.5%) occurred in antenatal phase, 23.8% in postnatal phase and 3.8% in intranatal phase. Ten per cent (n = 20) cases were related to abortions. The study observed no significant difference between the two MNM criteria as per McNemar test applied (p = 1.00; OR = 0.97; CI= 0.58–1.61). It is a statistical test generally utilised to compare two diagnostic tools on same group of patients. Further subgroup analysis was performed for the parameters such as- survival, full clinical recovery or residual morbidity at the time of hospital discharge and ICU admission. The Chi-square test showed a non-significant difference between the two criteria regarding these parameters (p > .05). Mean duration of hospital stay as well as the Near miss indices remained almost similar in both the groups (Table 2).