Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Did paper have statistical discrepancies?
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
I am confused by Weijnen et al's description of the
statistical methods used in their study and how they fit with the data
presented.1 The methods section states that all variables found to be univariate predictors of peptic ulcer with P<0.25 were
entered in the multivariate regression model. However, the results
section says that age was included in the model, although table 2 shows
that it was not predictive (P=0.67).
Table 2 also shows that P=0.24 for both hiatal hernia and pain after
meal, so these should have been included in the multivariate model, but
neither of them was. Are these discrepancies due to a typing mistake,
or is there another explanation?
| 1. |
Weijnen CF, Numans ME, de Wit NJ, Smout AJPM, Moons KGM, Verheij TJM, et al.
Testing for Helicobacter pylori in dyspeptic patients suspected of peptic ulcer disease in primary care: cross sectional study.
BMJ
2001;
323:
71-75 |
Authors' suggestion muddies waters in debate
EDITOR
Weijnen et al suggest that we should test and treat patients at
high risk of peptic ulceration.1 This seems to muddy the
waters in the debate about testing for Helicobacter pylori infection in primary care. Of