Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

meaning of coverage in the fig 18.9 #106

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

meaning of coverage in the fig 18.9 #106

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions MethodValidity.Rmd
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -365,9 +365,11 @@ We have run all the methods in the OHDSI Methods Library through this benchmark,

[^methodEvalViewerUrl]: http://data.ohdsi.org/MethodEvalViewer/

===>
```{r methodEval, fig.cap='Coverage of the 95\\% confidence interval for the methods in the Methods Library. Each dot represents the performance of a specific set of analysis choices. The dashed line indicates nominal performance (95\\% coverage). SCCS = Self-Controlled Case Series, GI = Gastrointestinal, IBD = inflammatory bowel disease.',echo=FALSE, out.width='100%', fig.align='center', fig.pos='h'}
knitr::include_graphics("images/MethodValidity/methodEval.png")
```
<===

This emphasizes the need for empirical evaluation and calibration: if no empirical evaluation is performed, which is true for almost all published observational studies, we must assume a prior informed by the results in Figure \@ref(fig:methodEval), and conclude that it is likely that the true effect size is not contained in the 95% confidence interval!

Expand Down