Incorrect predictions, not incorrect statistics!
1 Department of Perioperative & Emergency Care, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands
2 Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
3 Department of Neurology, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands
4 Department of Neurosurgery, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands
5 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands
Critical Care 2009, 13:406 doi:10.1186/cc7773
See related research by Hoff et al., http://ccforum.com/content/12/6/R153, and see related letter by Dane, http://ccforum.com/content/13/1/402
Published: 29 April 2009First paragraph (this article has no abstract)
In a recent study on nurses' ability to predict volume status after subarachnoid haemorrhage, we found very low predictive values [1]. In a letter to the editor, Dane [2] argued that an error in statistics 'makes any reasonable conclusions impossible'. Because Dr Dane was the statistical reviewer of our manuscript, both the authors and the editors were aware of Dane's comments on this issue well before publication.
