Reliability of statistics

I wanted to ask just how reliable the stats are that we all know. I was told once that usually aneurysms aren’t detected except at autopsy. But with the incidental findings and the ruptured, how does a study count all those? Do hospitals, keep a count that is then referred to the government?

I only know of one study I was a subject, third coiling, theory was weight and aneurysms. The Dr doing the study did an ultrasound of my thigh. And although I’m short and fat, I have no detectable fat in my legs. But she was bound by the hypothesis. I recall apologizing for not being a patient who could help prove the hypothesis but at least I could be on the disproof side.

So I was wondering just how all these groups base the statistics on if we aren’t part of a data collection? Could it be the numbers in all actuality are larger?

My neurosurgeon said that the stats that are through research are a small percentage of the population. That’s stats regarding surgical outcomes should be looked at per hospital basis and their personal statistics rather then world wide statistics as they are the ones performing surgery. When it comes to stats regarding reoccurance that’s a harder one. 1 in 4 can have an aneurysm and not know it and never rupture.
But for those greater at risk ie genetics, smoking history, drug use, alcohol abuse they are at higher risk.

I personally have not figured out how to interpret the data that is available as I don’t know if it’s a big enough data collection to be relevant.

Don’t believe I really helped answer anything you asked. Just my understanding.

Thank you! I was wondering if all hospitals had to report different types of procedures to their state which in turn reports to somewhere like NIH. I question it as the wording and numbers for my SAH was not under the Social Security codes. SS told me they had nothing for a ruptured brain aneurysm. I saw some research done in CA, where the researchers picked the emergency depts to gain their numbers. But where are the incidental numbers collected? Is everyone in the States using the same codes? What is the margin of error?

I had been looking at the Office of Rare Diseases which according to the guidelines (2011 law passed by Congress) of not greater than 200,000 Americans, we should be included since the NIH website says 30,000 Americans every year. I couldn’t find cerebral aneurysms, SAH, or the like anywhere. I thought the statistics should be there.

I think Significance is difficult if the research is not collecting for at least the whole state. I’m thinking there’s a lot of convolution in the stats. But they are hard for me to follow now. The following link shows one of the big hospitals stating less than two hundred for the year. The big studies are the International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms (ISUIA) and the International SubArachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) but with the growth of medicine, these are probably outdated.

I found this on Endovascular Today and it’s 14 years old, but I think relevant now. The author is even questioning stats on the two big studies and explains why.

I was surprised at their percentages of ruptured aneurysms and size. I have read here and other places that small aneurysms are put on the watch and wait. Yet the majority of ruptured aneurysms are small according to this paper. So where did we all get the idea of less risk? I’m thinking placement and type may be of greater importance, but I have no medical degree.

There is a current ISAT II under way and should be concluded in about 2025 or there about. Here is the criteria■■■■-14-156

I wish every study would list why they chose to exclude some from the study. I’m guessing the ISAT II is excluding those with contraindicators for contrast dye is probably due to the higher poor outcome rate, but they don’t elaborate.