Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeStatistics
Posted by mvanstralen on 26 Jun 2013 at 12:33 GMT
This is an interesting study.
However, the statistics in table 2 are confusing to me. The percentage change of HABF and HABF(as % of THBF) do not seem to match the absolute values for these measurements at baseline and after the standard meal. For HABF a mean change from 278 ml/min to 171 ml/min is reported, which is -38.5% where -20.2% is reported. For HABF (% of THBF) it changes from 24.5% to 13.9%, a change of 43.3%, where 28.8% is reported. Furthermore, the percentages reported for change in HABF (as % of THBF) differ in the table and the text, -28.8 +/- 43.3% vs. -28.8 +/- 43.2%, respectively.
For the HABF measurements the inconsistencies are most striking, however, the means reported for percentage change do not seem to match any of the absolute changes!
I am not sure how these possible errors would reflect in the p-values and their significances, nor how these differences could alter the conclusions of the paper.
Could you please comment whether these findings are my misinterpretations or actual errors in the statistics?