AJSM Click here for details!
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Greenfield, M. L. V. H.
Right arrow Articles by Wojtys, E. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Greenfield, M. L. V. H.
Right arrow Articles by Wojtys, E. M.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 27:544 (1999)
© 1999 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Letters to the Editor

Letter

Mary Lou V. H. Greenfield, MPH, MS, John E. Kuhn, MS, MD and Edward M. Wojtys, MD

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Dear Editor:

We would like to correct an error that appeared in a "Current Concepts" article in the Journal (Greenfield et al., "A Statistics Primer: Confidence Intervals," January/February 1998, pages 145–149). In this article, we gave several examples for calculating and interpreting confidence intervals for estimated means and proportions. Unfortunately, in our hypothetical example comparing posterior cruciate ligament injuries among athletes from Division I and III colleges, our point estimate is a ratio and not a proportion. While all formulas and interpretations for confidence intervals given in our article regarding estimated means and proportions are correct, the confidence interval calculated for a ratio is different than that for a proportion. The correct formula for calculating the 95% confidence interval for a ratio in our example should have been 95% CI = estimated Odds Ratio exp. (±1.96 x SE). The entire parenthetical expression in this formula is exponentiated. Thus, in our example, the 95% confidence interval for an odds ratio of 5 should have been (1.55,16.21). The upper and lower bounds result in a wider confidence interval than what we originally calculated; however, all other interpretations remain the same.

We regret any confusion this error may have caused your readers and we thank Dan O’Connor, MS, PT, ATC, for calling this to our attention.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. S. Reuben, J. Sklar, and M. El-Mansouri
The Preemptive Analgesic Effect of Intraarticular Bupivacaine and Morphine After Ambulatory Arthroscopic Knee Surgery
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2001; 92(4): 923 - 926.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Greenfield, M. L. V. H.
Right arrow Articles by Wojtys, E. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Greenfield, M. L. V. H.
Right arrow Articles by Wojtys, E. M.

HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS