金币
UID176556
帖子
主题
积分25203
注册时间2014-6-6
最后登录1970-1-1
听众
性别保密
|
欢迎您注册蒲公英
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看，没有帐号？立即注册
x
本帖最后由 beiwei5du 于 2017-9-14 15:59 编辑
本文介绍了使用RSD判定取样回收率的变异性的不合理性，并且给出合理的统计学方法（One possible solution is to base the measure of variability on the standard deviation of the data itself as a percentage of the 100% recovery value. ）
同时指出：Good documentation requires reporting the sample size, average, and standard deviation with the %RSD
结合现在取样回收率研究中变异性判定使用RSD的风险：
Where does that leave us? Am I expecting people to start using this measure of variability in place of the commonly used %RSD for sampling recovery studies? Probably not. Part of the reason is that a variability criterion for sampling recovery studies is typically set at a relatively high level (15%-20% RSD), reflecting the high variability of recovery studies. Furthermore, if percent recoveries are relatively high (>80%), the difference between the proposed new measure and the conventional %RSD is somewhat minor. Finally, if percent recoveries are low but still acceptable (such as 50-65%), then the %RSD measurement will give a higher measure of variability, thus reflecting a worst case. So, while this proposed measure may provide a more scientific basis for the degree of variability, the existing method is not terribly wrong (particularly for something as variable as a swab recovery study).
各位怎么看？？？？@蜗牛98 @kslam @hongwei2000
参考文献：
Statistical Solutions: %RSD: Friend or Foe? 统计学方案：%RSD：朋友，还是敌人？？
|
|
|手机版|蒲公英|ouryao|蒲公英
( 京ICP备14042168号-1 ) 增值电信业务经营许可证编号：京B2-20243455 互联网药品信息服务资格证书编号：(京)-非经营性-2024-0033
发表于 2017-9-14 15:57:58
置顶卡
变色卡
谢谢分享，收藏了