Download in Citation Manager - Print - Email - PakMediNet Member Services

Submit your Research Synopsis for Free Expert analysis - Search- Feedback - Drug Index


I have reviewed the full-text article from the CPSP Web site. When the hyperhomocysteinemia has been established by so many previously well-documented study as one of the risk factors for CAD, what new aspect of this correlation has been evaluated in the current study? I don't want to go into the details of the metabolic mechanisms involved in the causation of hyperhomocysteinemia in the CAD patients (this area has been poorly disucussed in the said paper). I have reviewd the table 1 of and found that the statiscal analyses are quite incorrent. Let me consider the chi-squar test results for hypercysteinemia. In table 1, among the control subjects 3 had hypercysteinemia while 97 had normal homocystein level (below the cut-off value). Among 100 patients, 53 had elevated levels of homocystein (so hyperhomocysteinemic) while the remaining 47 subjects had normal homocystein levels. Whe I analyzed these values the chi-square test value is 62 while in table 1 of the article it is 38.6 see it at My results for the said data values are as follows (to determine the risk of hypercysteinemia for CAD ... very sorry that the said paper remained confied chi-squar test to analyze its data): Results of analysis done by me are Exposure rate among diseased cases:0.53 or 53% Exposure among healthy cases or controls: 0.03 or 3% Incidence or absolute risk in the exposed group:0.946 Incidence or absolute risk in the non-exposed group: 0.326 Absolute risk in exposed + non-exposed groups: 0.5 Attributable risk (AR): 0.62 Attributable risk percent (AR%): 65.5% Relative risk ratio (RR): 2.9 Odd that a diseased subject is exposed: 1.128 Odds that a conytrol (healthy) subject is exposed: 0.031 Odds ratio (OR) or cross-product ratio: 36.46 Chi-square test: 62 I don't know who among the evaluators for JCPS's articles approved articles with incorrect statistical analysis. Any statistician can easily reanalyze the data and will certainly approve my analyzed statical results. Honesty group ... Fight against
Posted by: honesty on Sep 2004

Although I am confused by hinesty's calculation, especially by the use of relative risk in a case-control study, I do agree that the value of chi square is 62 (it reflects very poorly on the journal's standards, but it does not change conclusion).
Posted by: rqayyum on Jan 2005


Your USERNAME (login)
Your Comments

Journal Index - Authors Index - Keywords Index - Research Synopsis - PakMediNet Drug Index
About us - Terms and Conditions - Contributors - Contact Us - Member Services

© All rights reserved and Copyright protected
No Part of Website is allowed to be copied without prior permission. Hosted by PakCyber (R).