![Very Happy :-D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :-D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :-D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :-D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
is followed by:The MS group showed lower normalized internal jugular vein (IJV) blood flow (tIJV/tA) than the HC group (P < .001).
So we have two MS groups and two Healthy Control groups.In the MS group, 72 (52%) were classified as ST while 66 (48%) were NST. In the HC group, 11 (23%) were ST while 37 (77%) were NST. The ST-MS group had lower IJV flow than both HC and NST-MS groups.
This was not badly presented. The purpose, as stated, was not to determine whether "MS" patients or HC were or were not ST. If that were the purpose, a Chi-squared test might have thrown some light.DrGeoff wrote:And just why should there be any excitement over a badly presented bit of research?
just read the abstract:is followed by:The MS group showed lower normalized internal jugular vein (IJV) blood flow (tIJV/tA) than the HC group (P < .001).So we have two MS groups and two Healthy Control groups.In the MS group, 72 (52%) were classified as ST while 66 (48%) were NST. In the HC group, 11 (23%) were ST while 37 (77%) were NST. The ST-MS group had lower IJV flow than both HC and NST-MS groups.
Now ask: Why, with a 2x2 contingency table, there was no Chi-square test reported?
One result that is highly significant is reported, but a very basic test is not. Make me wonder if the Chi-square was done and failed to be significant. From my point of view, this is a non starter in the research stakes.
Geoff
This was correctly determined. The ST-non-ST status was not the question. The stenotic status of the subjects was determined, as stated, by MRA assessment. I'm sure the researchers will provide you with those MRIs if you need them.To determine if extracranial venous structural and flow abnormalities exist in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).
It's in the paper, "More than half the MS group 72/138 (52%) classified as ST compared to 11/48 (23%) HC participants (χ2 = 12.01; P < .001)."So we have two MS groups and two Healthy Control groups.
Now ask: Why, with a 2x2 contingency table, there was no Chi-square test reported?
Thank you for making my point again.It's in the paper, "More than half the MS group 72/138 (52%) classified as ST compared to 11/48 (23%) HC participants (χ2 = 12.01; P < .001)."
Did you happen to read it, or just make your inference from reading the abstract?
Whether or not an abstract impresses anonymous posters (doctors or otherwise) on this board is of little consequence. All of the data is published in the Journal of Neuroimaging--the official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging--and will continue to get notice. Let's make sure to link the full paper once it's free for all.It's in the paper, "More than half the MS group 72/138 (52%) classified as ST compared to 11/48 (23%) HC participants (χ2 = 12.01; P < .001)."
Did you happen to read it, or just make your inference from reading the abstract?
Most critical is the finding that a subgroup of the MS group has significantly reduced IJV flow compared to Healthy Controls. The statistics model is robust and clearly laid out. I welcome thoughtful critique, but at least read the paper first.
Whether or not an abstract impresses anonymous posters (doctors or otherwise) on this board is of little consequence.
This sort of comment does betray a total lack of understanding as to how scientists work!Just because you expect to see extraneous matter in an abstract, does not mean everyone else does.
DrGeoff wrote:Efforts to hype one particular paper just because it supports one particular viewpoint do not impress me. The paper that will be of interest to me is the one that finally settles the argument about whether MS is caused by CCSVI, or whether CCSVI is a symptom of MS.
Geoff
Well, you might think that.I think this abstract does not look at all dubious. That opinion was apparently shared by the publisher.