Correction to Why clinicians are natural bayesians: Clinicians have to be bayesians
Correction to Why clinicians are natural bayesians: Authors' reply
Correction to Clarification: doctors did not accuse Indian authorities of massaging leprosy data
Correction to Why clinicians are natural bayesians: Bayesian confusion
Correction to Why clinicians are natural bayesians: Is there a bayesian doctor in the house?
Christopher J Gill and colleagues, the authors of this letter (BMJ 2005;330:1390, 11 Jun), have alerted us to an error in the formula converting proportions to odds—the minus sign should have been a plus sign. The correct formula is therefore: Probability = 1/1(1+odds).
PDF
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27