Percentagewise, it’s a common error
If a price doubles, is it 200 per cent higher? No, it’s 100 per cent higher.
Nigel Hawkes :: Thu 7th Jun 2012
Sheila Bird :: Fri 1st Jun 2012
Peterborough Prison: can matching ride to the rescue of a non-randomized study?
Full Fact :: Fri 1st Jun 2012
Did Labour 'fix the figures' on unemployment while in office?
Nigel Hawkes :: Thu 31st May 2012
Nigel Hawkes :: Tue 15th May 2012
Full Fact :: Thu 10th May 2012
Heathrow queues report exposes need for better immigration data
Fri 10th Dec 2010
Thu 5th Aug 2010
Wed 26th May 2010
If a price doubles, is it 200 per cent higher? No, it’s 100 per cent higher.
The bigger a study, the better? That’s an assumption often made. But even studies that knock us out by their sheer size may be wrong.
Controversy over the effectiveness of antidepressants such as Prozac, provoked by an article by Irving Kirsch and colleagues in 2008 in PLOS Medicine, shows no sign of declining.
The most striking revelation in a quarter of comments in BMJ.com on the Department of Health’s risk sharing scheme for multiple sclerosis (MS) drugs is its undermining of subseq
The new Government has promised to establish a system in which the price paid for drugs represents the value they bring to patients.
Is David Cameron right to claim that people are dying because they cannot get access to cancer drugs?
Seven years ago, after strong media, clinical and patient pressure, the Government negotiated a “risk-sharing” deal over access to drugs to treat multiple sclerosis.
The NHS Information Centre has issued some “experimental statistics” covering the take-up of medicines approved by the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).