Susan Ashley Francis Ch.3 Biostats Homework 10.2.

11

7.6.3 Introduction: There are different options for kidney dialysis. The two primary methods are hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Hemodialysis is usually intravenous and generally must be performed in a medical facility. Peritoneal dialysis is performed via insertion of a tube into the stomach!s peritoneum lining and can be conducted in the comfort of a patients home. It was of interest to determine if there was a signicant difference in diabetes prevalence at baseline between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis treatment groups.

Methods: The frequency and proportion of patients with the prevalence of diabetes at baseline is summarized with sample proportions and 95% score condence intervals. The frequency of patients reporting diabetes is recorded for hemodialysis (n=529) and peritoneal dialysis (n=326). The null hypothesis of no signicant difference (HO: p1-p2 = 0, where p1 is the proportion of patients in the hemodialysis group reporting diabetes and p2 is the proportion of patients in peritoneal dialysis group reporting diabetes) is tested against the two tailed alternative hypothesis (HA:p1-p2 " 0) by using the Pearson #2 test with 1 degree of freedom and signicance level $= 0.05. Additionally, the difference in proportions is reported, as well as a 95% score condence interval on the difference in diabetes prevalence between the group proportions. The null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative if the pvalue is less than 0.05 ($); otherwise we fail to reject the null. JMP statistical software was used for all statistical analyses.

Susan Ashley Francis Ch.3 Biostats Homework 10.2.11

Results: The data are summarized below in Table 1. The samples were large enough for analyses assuming they were representative and subjects were independent. The observed difference in diabetes prevalence between the hemodialysis group (0.4707, 95% CI: 0.429, 0.513) and the peritoneal group (0.4110, 95% CI: 0.359-0.465) is 0.0597 (95% CI: -0.009-0.128), which according to the two sample #2 test has a p-value = 0.0884. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. Table 1
Count Hemodialysis Peritoneal Total Diabetic 249 134 383 Not Diabetic Group Sample Size 280 192 472 529 326 855 Di!erence 0.0597 (-0.009- 0.128) Proportion with Diabetes 0.4707 0.4110 95% Condence Interval (0.429-0.513) (0.359-0.465)

Discussion: The sample data implies that there is insufcient evidence to conclude that there is a signicant difference between the prevalence of diabetes among patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Therefore, it may be necessary to conduct further research examining the correlation between diabetes prevalence and these two options of kidney dialysis.

Susan Ashley Francis Ch.3 Biostats Homework 10.2.11

7.6.4 Introduction: Obesity is a growing epidemic that has been linked to numerous chronic diseases. Obesity is the condition of having too much fat and weighing too much for one!s height. Overweight individuals are at risk for becoming obese if they do not manage their weight effectively. It was of interest to determine if there was a difference in the proportions of males and females ages 20-75 that were overweight.

Methods: The frequency and proportion of overweight individuals is summarized with sample proportions and 95% score condence intervals. The frequency of patients reportedly overweight is recorded for males (n=150) and females (n=200). The null hypothesis of no signicant difference (HO: p1-p2 = 0, where p1 is the proportion of overweight females and p2 is the proportion of overweight males) is tested against the two tailed alternative hypothesis (HA:p1-p2 " 0) by using the Pearson #2 test with 1 degree of freedom and signicance level $= 0.05. Additionally, the difference in proportions is reported, as well as a 95% score condence interval on the difference in overweight status between the group proportions. The null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative if the p-value is less than 0.05 ($); otherwise we fail to reject the null. JMP statistical software was used for all statistical analyses.

Results: The data are summarized below in Table 2. The samples were large enough for analyses assuming they were representative and subjects were independent. The observed difference in overweight status between the female group (0.2400, 95% CI: 0.186, 0.304) and the male group (0.1400, 95%

Susan Ashley Francis Ch.3 Biostats Homework 10.2.11

CI: 0.093-0.205) is 0.1000 (95% CI: 0.019-0.181), which according to the two sample #2 test has a pvalue = 0.0200. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative. Table 2
Count Females Males Total Not overweight 152 129 281 Overweight Group Sample Size 48 21 69 200 150 350 Di!erence 0.1000 (0.019-0.181) Proportion Overweight 0.2400 0.1400 95% Condence Interval (0.186-0.304) (0.093-0.205)

Discussion: The sample data implies there is sufcient evidence to conclude a signicant difference between the prevalence of overweight status among males and females, and that there is a higher prevalence among females. Thus, clinicians and practitioners may wish to keep this in mind when assessing the status of female patients at risk or currently overweight.