Cargando…

Potential biases in the classification, analysis and interpretations in cross-sectional study: commentaries – surrounding the article "resting heart rate: its correlations and potential for screening metabolic dysfunctions in adolescents"

BACKGROUND: Resting heart rate reflects sympathetic nerve activity. A significant association between resting heart rate (HR) and all causes of cardiovascular mortality has been reported by some epidemiologic studies. Despite suggestive evidence, resting heart rate (RHR) has not been formally explor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Moraes, Augusto César Ferreira, Cassenote, Alex Jones Flores, Moreno, Luis A, Carvalho, Heráclito Barbosa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885992
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-14-117
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Resting heart rate reflects sympathetic nerve activity. A significant association between resting heart rate (HR) and all causes of cardiovascular mortality has been reported by some epidemiologic studies. Despite suggestive evidence, resting heart rate (RHR) has not been formally explored as a prognostic factor and potential therapeutic outcome and, therefore, is not generally accepted in adolescents. DISCUSSION: The core of the debate is the methodological aspects used in "Resting heart rate: its correlations and potential for screening metabolic dysfunctions in adolescents"; the points are: cutoff used for cluster RHR, two different statistical models used to analyze the same set of variables, one for continuous data, and another for categorical data; interpretation of p-value < 0.05, sampling process involving two random stages, analysis of design effect and the parameters of screening tests. SUMMARY: Aspects that must be taken into account for evaluation of a screening test to measure the potential for discrimination for a common variable (population with outcome vs. no outcome population), the main indicators are: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. The measures of argumentation equality (CI) or difference (p-valor) are important to validate these indicators but do not indicate quality of screening.