logo
Call us: +44 (0)1865 244727

  • Home
  • Scope
  • News
  • Products
    • RADAR
    • CALL-OFF PROJECTS
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • How we work
    • Independent
      • Common law orthodoxies
      • Sensationalism
      • Expert witness
      • Regulation and Politics
      • Tied services
    • Up-to-date
      • Timely
      • Insurance Scenarios
      • Probabilistic Methods
    • Expert
      • Personal Injury
      • Trends
    • Innovative
  • Database
    • Member’s login
    • Member’s Settings
    • Register
    • RADAR Database
  • Recent projects
    • EMFs
    • STRESS AT WORK
    • WHIPLASH
    • WELDING RODS: MANGANESE EXPOSURE
    • ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    • Other Projects



2001. Epidemiology for insurers: Confidence Interval.

May 22, 2012
by Andrew@Reliabilityoxford.co.uk
0 Comment
Evidence from:

Andrew@reliabilityoxford.co.uk

Risk Ratios are usually accompanied by an estimate of precision measured by the 95% confidence interval (CI).

What this means is that the true risk ratio (for that particular study) has a 95% probability of falling within the stated range and that its most likely value is the one reported. For example, a RR of 2.1 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.1) means that the ‘true’ risk ratio has a 95% probability of being between 1.8 and 3.1, the most likely value being 2.1.

The wider the 95% CI the less probable the stated RR.

If the 95% CI includes 1.0 the result is usually considered not to be statistically valid. E.g. RR = 2.1 (95% CI = 0.8 to 5.6) and e.g. RR = 0.75 (95% CI = 0.4 to 1.5).

It is debatable whether or not the 95% confidence interval is the appropriate one to consider in the context of the civil law. The usual test of evidence at civil law is that of the balance of probabilities, or >50%.

It is technically possible to quote the results of epidemiological experiments using a 50% confidence interval. However, this might give the impression of over confidence in the result, most epidemiologists would agree that their experiments are subject to influences beyond their control and would doubt the value of reporting a 50% CI.

 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

captcha *

Search Documents


Categories

  • Causation
    • de minimis
    • material contribution
  • Date of knowledge
  • Diagnosis
  • Duty of Care
  • Exposure estimation data
  • Mitigation
  • Motor related injury
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012

© Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. 2012. All rights reserved.
Website Design by The Big Picture