Clinical Epidemiology in Rheumatology

  • Bella MehtaEmail author


In this overview, we go over the principal concepts of epidemiology and statistics that are tested regularly in rheumatology board exams. It helps distinguish key type of variables that rheumatologists come across, which are categorical and continuous variables. The chapter also covers measures of central tendency—mean, median, as well as mode. Additionally, it covers distribution of data, which includes standard deviation and interquartile range. Types of study design including case-control, cohort, as well as randomized controlled trials are categorized in detail. Fundamental epidemiological theories including incidence, prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and odds ratio are defined, and basic formulas and calculations are described. Furthermore, this chapter describes a few important types of biases that are usually tested on boards. All of these concepts help rheumatologists to read, understand, and apply scientific literature to evidence-based clinical practice.


Epidemiology Biostatistics Sensitivity Specificity Odds ratio Non-inferiority trail Distribution of data 


  1. 1.
    Reginster JY, et al. Long-term effects of glucosamine sulphate on osteoarthritis progression: a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lancet. 2001;357(9252):251–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mayya SS, Monteiro AD, Ganapathy S. Types of biological variables. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(6):1730–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manikandan S. Measures of dispersion. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2(4):315–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cervera R, et al. Morbidity and mortality in the antiphospholipid syndrome during a 10-year period: a multicentre prospective study of 1000 patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):1011–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thiese MS. Observational and interventional study design types; an overview. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014;24(2):199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests. 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ. 1994;308(6943):1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes: diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ. 1994;309(6947):102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Appel GB, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(5):1103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310(6977):452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szumilas M. Explaining odds ratios. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;19(3):227–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones RB, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for remission induction in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(3):399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oczkowski SJW. A clinician’s guide to the assessment and interpretation of noninferiority trials for novel therapies. Open Med. 2014;8(2):e67–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vavken P. Rationale for and methods of superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence designs in orthopaedic, controlled trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2645–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Piaggio G, et al. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;295(10):1152–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RheumatologyHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations