This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
In Reply.—We agree with Dr Mauro's interpretation of our findings. Given the study size and the observed isolation rates of non–group A streptococci, it was highly unlikely (P<.02) that even a 5% increase of isolations among the ill children would have been missed. Since the observed isolation rate was actually higher among the healthy controls, the lack of an important clinical difference seemed readily apparent. The 95% CI for the difference in isolation rates is another way of expressing these results, which may appeal to some readers.
HAYDEN GF, HENDLEY JO, MURPHY TF. It's Time We Eschew the Error, Type II-Reply. Am J Dis Child. 1990;144(6):622. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1990.02150300016011
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: