Die Zeit bis zum LoC (Bewusstseinsverlust) ist mit Propofol gegenüber kürzer, aber nicht signifikant.
Die zeit bis zum LoC ist mit Midazolam signifikant länger.
With "Non-Significant" Results
The difference between the perspective provided by the confidence interval and significance testing is particularly clear when considering non-significant results. The image below shows two confidence intervals; neither of them is "statistically significant" using the criterion of P< 0.05, because both of them embrace the null (risk ratio = 1.0). However, one should view these two estimates differently. The estimate with the wide confidence interval was likely obtained with a small sample size and a lot of potential for random error. However, even though it is not statistically significant, the point estimate (i.e., the estimated risk ratio or odds ratio) was somewhere around four, raising the possibility of an important effect. In this case one might want to explore this further by repeating the study with a larger sample size. Repeating the study with a larger sample would certainly not guarantee a statistically significant result, but it would provide a more precise estimate. The other estimate that is depicted is also non-significant, but it is a much narrower, i.e., more precise estimate, and we are confident that the true value is likely to be close to the null value. Even if there were a difference between the groups, it is likely to be a very small difference that may have little if any clinical significance. So, in this case, one would not be inclined to repeat the study.
sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/EP/EP713_RandomError/EP713_RandomError6.html
With "Significant" Results
The next figure illustrates two study results that are both statistically significant at P< 0.05, because both confidence intervals lie entirely above the null value (RR or OR = 1). The upper result has a point estimate of about two, and its confidence interval ranges from about 0.5 to 3.0, and the lower result shows a point estimate of about 6 with a confidence interval that ranges from 0.5 to about 12. The narrower, more precise estimate enables us to be confident that there is about a two-fold increase in risk among those who have the exposure of interest. In contrast, the study with the wide confidence interval is "statistically significant," but it leaves us uncertain about the magnitude of the effect. Is the increase in risk relatively modest or is it huge? We just don't know.
A phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of remimazolam (CNS 7056) compared with placebo and midazolam in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
Rex DK1, Bhandari R2, Desta T3, DeMicco MP4, Schaeffer C5, Etzkorn K6, Barish CF7, Pruitt R8, Cash BD9, Quirk D10, Tiongco F11, Sullivan S12, Bernstein D13
Author information
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 30 Apr 2018, 88(3):427-437.e6
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.2351 PMID: 29723512
www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(18)32661-0/pdf
Zurück
Werbung
