RESUMO

En los informes meta-analíticos se suelen reportar varios tipos de intervalos, hecho que ha generado cierta confusión a la hora de interpretarlos. Los intervalos de confianza reflejan la incertidumbre relacionada con un número, el tamaño del efecto medio paramétrico. Los intervalos de predicción reflejan el tamaño paramétrico probable en cualquier estudio de la misma clase que los incluidos en un meta-análisis. Su interpretación y aplicaciones son diferentes. En este artículo explicamos su diferente naturaleza y cómo se pueden utilizar para responder preguntas específicas. Se incluyen ejemplos numéricos, así como su cálculo con el paquete metafor en R.(AU)

Several types of intervals are usually employed in meta-analysis, a fact that has generated some confusion when interpreting them. Confidence intervals reflect the uncertainty related to a single number, the parametric mean effect size. Prediction intervals reflect the probable parametric effect size in any study of the same class as those included in a meta-analysis. Its interpretation and applications are different. In this article we explain in de-tail their different nature and how they can be used to answer specific ques-tions. Numerical examples are included, as well as their computation with the metafor Rpackage.(AU)

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

The original idea of rejecting studies with low power and authorising them if their power is sufficiently high is reasonable and even an obligation, although in practice this reasoning is heavily constrained by the fact that the power of a study depends on several factors, rather than a single one. Furthermore, there is no threshold separating 'high' power values from 'low' power values'. However, if the result is very significant, considering how powerful it was it makes little sense after the study has been carried out. It is only possible to take advantage of the result. Situations in which this result is not statistically significant warrant further consideration. Consideration of the power may be useful in these circumstances. This article focuses on the position that should be adopted in these cases, and it shows that in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the effect size of the population, calculating the confidence interval is more useful than calculating the power, and its interpretation is more easily understood by physicians who lack training in statistical analysis.

TITLE: Potencia estadística de una investigación médica. ¿Qué postura tomar cuando los resultados de la investigación no son significativos?La idea original de rechazar estudios con baja potencia y autorizarlos si es suficientemente alta es razonable e incluso obligada, aunque en la práctica este razonamiento se ve muy limitado por el hecho de que la potencia de un estudio depende de varios factores y, por tanto, no es única. Además, no hay un valor frontera que separe los valores 'altos' de potencia de los 'bajos'. Pese a esto, una vez realizado el estudio, si su resultado es muy significativo, no tiene sentido preguntarnos por la potencia que tenía. Sólo cabe aprovechar su resultado. Consideración aparte merece el caso en que dicho resultado no sea estadísticamente significativo. Entonces sí puede ser pertinente considerar su potencia. A continuación, se hace una reflexión sobre qué postura adoptar en estos casos y se muestra que, para sacar conclusiones razonables sobre el efecto poblacional, el cálculo de su intervalo de confianza es más útil que el cálculo de la potencia y su interpretación más fácilmente entendible por el médico sin formación en análisis estadístico.

Assuntos

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

Meta-analysis is an essential tool to comprehensively synthesize and quantitatively evaluate results of multiple clinical studies in evidence-based medicine. In many meta-analyses, the characteristics of some studies might markedly differ from those of the others, and these outlying studies can generate biases and potentially yield misleading results. In this article, we provide effective robust statistical inference methods using generalized likelihoods based on the density power divergence. The robust inference methods are designed to adjust the influences of outliers through the use of modified estimating equations based on a robust criterion, even when multiple and serious influential outliers are present. We provide the robust estimators, statistical tests, and confidence intervals via the generalized likelihoods for the fixed-effect and random-effects models of meta-analysis. We also assess the contribution rates of individual studies to the robust overall estimators that indicate how the influences of outlying studies are adjusted. Through simulations and applications to two recently published systematic reviews, we demonstrate that the overall conclusions and interpretations of meta-analyses can be markedly changed if the robust inference methods are applied and that only the conventional inference methods might produce misleading evidence. These methods would be recommended to be used at least as a sensitivity analysis method in the practice of meta-analysis. We have also developed an R package, robustmeta, that implements the robust inference methods.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Reliance on null hypothesis significance testing often leads to misinterpretation of research results. Common misinterpretations include that a statistically nonsignificant difference (p ≥ 0.05) implies no difference between groups, and that a statistically significant finding (p < 0.05) is unbiased and clinically important. We aimed to develop a tool - the Conclusion Generator - to mitigate these misconceptions. METHODS: We reviewed the content of the Conclusion Generator and validated its output using published and simulated data. RESULTS: The Conclusion Generator is a free online application designed to generate conclusions for scientific papers based on the values and clinical interpretation of the point estimate and confidence interval. Both relative and absolute measures of effect are supported. It offers two modes for interpretation: (1) Statistical mode provides an accurate statistical interpretation of results, with an optional specification of superiority and noninferiority bounds; (2) Clinical mode evaluates the clinical importance of the point estimate and confidence limits as specified by the user. Both modes assume no uncontrolled biases. Users must specify the number of decimals, the direction of a beneficial effect (e.g., relative risk <1 vs. >1), and the level of detail (concise vs. elaborated) for the output. The validation confirmed the Conclusion Generator's capability to interpret research results, considering random error and clinical relevance, while avoiding common misinterpretations associated with null hypothesis significance testing. CONCLUSIONS: The Conclusion Generator facilitates an appropriate interpretation of research results by emphasizing estimation and clinical relevance over hypothesis testing.

Assuntos

RESUMO

The statistical significance of a clinical trial analysis result is determined by a mathematical calculation and probability based on null hypothesis significance testing. However, statistical significance does not always align with meaningful clinical effects; thus, assigning clinical relevance to statistical significance is unreasonable. A statistical result incorporating a clinically meaningful difference is a better approach to present statistical significance. Thus, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which requires integrating minimum clinically relevant changes from the early stages of research design, has been introduced. As a follow-up to the previous statistical round article on P values, confidence intervals, and effect sizes, in this article, we present hands-on examples of MCID and various effect sizes and discuss the terms statistical significance and clinical relevance, including cautions regarding their use.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The physical therapy profession has made efforts to increase the use of confidence intervals due to the valuable information they provide for clinical decision-making. Confidence intervals indicate the precision of the results and describe the strength and direction of a treatment effect measure. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of reporting of confidence intervals, achievement of intended sample size, and adjustment for multiple primary outcomes in randomised trials of physical therapy interventions. METHODS: We randomly selected 100 trials published in 2021 and indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Two independent reviewers extracted the number of participants, any sample size calculation, and any adjustments for multiple primary outcomes. We extracted whether at least one between-group comparison was reported with a 95 % confidence interval and whether any confidence intervals were interpreted. RESULTS: The prevalence of use of confidence intervals was 47 % (95 % CI 38, 57). Only 6 % of trials (95 % CI: 3, 12) both reported and interpreted a confidence interval. Among the 100 trials, 59 (95 % CI: 49, 68) calculated and achieved the required sample size. Among the 100 trials, 19 % (95 % CI: 13, 28) had a problem with unadjusted multiplicity on the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Around half of trials of physical therapy interventions published in 2021 reported confidence intervals around between-group differences. This represents an increase of 5 % from five years earlier. Very few trials interpreted the confidence intervals. Most trials reported a sample size calculation, and among these most achieved that sample size. There is still a need to increase the use of adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Randomization-based inference using the Fisher randomization test allows for the computation of Fisher-exact P-values, making it an attractive option for the analysis of small, randomized experiments with non-normal outcomes. Two common test statistics used to perform Fisher randomization tests are the difference-in-means between the treatment and control groups and the covariate-adjusted version of the difference-in-means using analysis of covariance. Modern computing allows for fast computation of the Fisher-exact P-value, but confidence intervals have typically been obtained by inverting the Fisher randomization test over a range of possible effect sizes. The test inversion procedure is computationally expensive, limiting the usage of randomization-based inference in applied work. A recent paper by Zhu and Liu developed a closed form expression for the randomization-based confidence interval using the difference-in-means statistic. We develop an important extension of Zhu and Liu to obtain a closed form expression for the randomization-based covariate-adjusted confidence interval and give practitioners a sufficiency condition that can be checked using observed data and that guarantees that these confidence intervals have correct coverage. Simulations show that our procedure generates randomization-based covariate-adjusted confidence intervals that are robust to non-normality and that can be calculated in nearly the same time as it takes to calculate the Fisher-exact P-value, thus removing the computational barrier to performing randomization-based inference when adjusting for covariates. We also demonstrate our method on a re-analysis of phase I clinical trial data.

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

Modern anesthetic drugs ensure the efficacy of general anesthesia. Goals include reducing variability in surgical, tracheal extubation, post-anesthesia care unit, or intraoperative response recovery times. Generalized confidence intervals based on the log-normal distribution compare variability between groups, specifically ratios of standard deviations. The alternative statistical approaches, performing robust variance comparison tests, give P-values, not point estimates nor confidence intervals for the ratios of the standard deviations. We performed Monte-Carlo simulations to learn what happens to confidence intervals for ratios of standard deviations of anesthesia-associated times when analyses are based on the log-normal, but the true distributions are Weibull. We used simulation conditions comparable to meta-analyses of most randomized trials in anesthesia, n ≈ 25 and coefficients of variation ≈ 0.30 . The estimates of the ratios of standard deviations were positively biased, but slightly, the ratios being 0.11% to 0.33% greater than nominal. In contrast, the 95% confidence intervals were very wide (i.e., > 95% of P ≥ 0.05). Although substantive inferentially, the differences in the confidence limits were small from a clinical or managerial perspective, with a maximum absolute difference in ratios of 0.016. Thus, P < 0.05 is reliable, but investigators should plan for Type II errors at greater than nominal rates.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: For time-to-event endpoints, three additional benefit assessment methods have been developed aiming at an unbiased knowledge about the magnitude of clinical benefit of newly approved treatments. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) defines a continuous score using the hazard ratio point estimate (HR-PE). The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) developed methods with an ordinal outcome using lower and upper limits of the 95% HR confidence interval (HR-CI), respectively. We describe all three frameworks for additional benefit assessment aiming at a fair comparison across different stakeholders. Furthermore, we determine which ASCO score is consistent with which ESMO/IQWiG category. METHODS: In a comprehensive simulation study with different failure time distributions and treatment effects, we compare all methods using Spearman's correlation and descriptive measures. For determination of ASCO values consistent with categories of ESMO/IQWiG, maximizing weighted Cohen's Kappa approach was used. RESULTS: Our research depicts a high positive relationship between ASCO/IQWiG and a low positive relationship between ASCO/ESMO. An ASCO score smaller than 17, 17 to 20, 20 to 24, and greater than 24 corresponds to ESMO categories. Using ASCO values of 21 and 38 as cutoffs represents IQWiG categories. LIMITATIONS: We investigated the statistical aspects of the methods and hence implemented slightly reduced versions of all methods. CONCLUSIONS: IQWiG and ASCO are more conservative than ESMO, which often awards the maximal category independent of the true effect and is at risk of overcompensating with various failure time distributions. ASCO has similar characteristics as IQWiG. Delayed treatment effects and underpowered/overpowered studies influence all methods in some degree. Nevertheless, ESMO is the most liberal one. HIGHLIGHTS: For the additional benefit assessment, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) uses the hazard ratio point estimate (HR-PE) for their continuous score. In contrast, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) use the lower and upper 95% HR confidence interval (HR-CI) to specific thresholds, respectively. ESMO generously assigns maximal scores, while IQWiG is more conservative.This research provides the first comparison between IQWiG and ASCO and describes all three frameworks for additional benefit assessment aiming for a fair comparison across different stakeholders. Furthermore, thresholds for ASCO consistent with ESMO and IQWiG categories are determined, enabling a comparison of the methods in practice in a fair manner.IQWiG and ASCO are the more conservative methods, while ESMO awards high percentages of maximal categories, especially with various failure time distributions. ASCO has similar characteristics as IQWiG. Delayed treatment effects and under/-overpowered studies influence all methods. Nevertheless, ESMO is the most liberal one. An ASCO score smaller than 17, 17 to 20, 20 to 24, and greater than 24 correspond to the categories of ESMO. Using ASCO values of 21 and 38 as cutoffs represents categories of IQWiG.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Genetic correlation refers to the correlation between genetic determinants of a pair of traits. When using individual-level data, it is typically estimated based on a bivariate model specification where the correlation between the two variables is identifiable and can be estimated from a covariance model that incorporates the genetic relationship between individuals, e.g., using a pre-specified kinship matrix. Inference relying on asymptotic normality of the genetic correlation parameter estimates may be inaccurate when the sample size is low, when the genetic correlation is close to the boundary of the parameter space, and when the heritability of at least one of the traits is low. We address this problem by developing a parametric bootstrap procedure to construct confidence intervals for genetic correlation estimates. The procedure simulates paired traits under a range of heritability and genetic correlation parameters, and it uses the population structure encapsulated by the kinship matrix. Heritabilities and genetic correlations are estimated using the close-form, method of moment, Haseman-Elston regression estimators. The proposed parametric bootstrap procedure is especially useful when genetic correlations are computed on pairs of thousands of traits measured on the same exact set of individuals. We demonstrate the parametric bootstrap approach on a proteomics dataset from the Jackson Heart Study.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Estimating causal effects from large experimental and observational data has become increasingly prevalent in both industry and research. The bootstrap is an intuitive and powerful technique used to construct standard errors and confidence intervals of estimators. Its application however can be prohibitively demanding in settings involving large data. In addition, modern causal inference estimators based on machine learning and optimization techniques exacerbate the computational burden of the bootstrap. The bag of little bootstraps has been proposed in non-causal settings for large data but has not yet been applied to evaluate the properties of estimators of causal effects. In this article, we introduce a new bootstrap algorithm called causal bag of little bootstraps for causal inference with large data. The new algorithm significantly improves the computational efficiency of the traditional bootstrap while providing consistent estimates and desirable confidence interval coverage. We describe its properties, provide practical considerations, and evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm in terms of bias, coverage of the true 95% confidence intervals, and computational time in a simulation study. We apply it in the evaluation of the effect of hormone therapy on the average time to coronary heart disease using a large observational data set from the Women's Health Initiative.

Assuntos

RESUMO

A multi-stage randomized trial design can significantly improve efficiency by allowing early termination of the trial when the experimental arm exhibits either low or high efficacy compared to the control arm during the study. However, proper inference methods are necessary because the underlying distribution of the target statistic changes due to the multi-stage structure. This article focuses on multi-stage randomized phase II trials with a dichotomous outcome, such as treatment response, and proposes exact conditional confidence intervals for the odds ratio. The usual single-stage confidence intervals are invalid when used in multi-stage trials. To address this issue, we propose a linear ordering of all possible outcomes. This ordering is conditioned on the total number of responders in each stage and utilizes the exact conditional distribution function of the outcomes. This approach enables the estimation of an exact confidence interval accounting for the multi-stage designs.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Researchers are often interested in comparing predictors, a practice commonly done via informal comparisons of standardized regression slopes. However, formal interval-based approaches offer advantages over informal comparison. Specifically, this article examines a delta-method-based confidence interval for the difference between two standardized regression coefficients, building upon previous work on confidence intervals for single coefficients. Using Monte Carlo simulation studies, the proposed approach is evaluated at finite sample sizes with respect to coverage rate, interval width, Type I error rate, and statistical power under a variety of conditions, and is shown to outperform an alternative approach that uses the standard covariance matrix found in regression textbooks. Additional simulations evaluate current software implementations, small sample performance, and multiple comparison procedures for simultaneously testing multiple differences of interest. Guidance on sample size planning for narrow confidence intervals, an R function to conduct the proposed method, and two empirical demonstrations are provided. The goal is to offer researchers a different tool in their toolbox for when comparisons among standardized coefficients are desired, as a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, other potentially useful analyses.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Calculating confidence intervals and p-values of edges in networks is useful to decide their presence or absence and it is a natural way to quantify uncertainty. Since lasso estimation is often used to obtain edges in a network, and the underlying distribution of lasso estimates is discontinuous and has probability one at zero when the estimate is zero, obtaining p-values and confidence intervals is problematic. It is also not always desirable to use the lasso to select the edges because there are assumptions required for correct identification of network edges that may not be warranted for the data at hand. Here, we review three methods that either use a modified lasso estimate (desparsified or debiased lasso) or a method that uses the lasso for selection and then determines p-values without the lasso. We compare these three methods with popular methods to estimate Gaussian Graphical Models in simulations and conclude that the desparsified lasso and its bootstrapped version appear to be the best choices for selection and quantifying uncertainty with confidence intervals and p-values.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Statistical significance has long relied on the criterion of P less than or equal to .05. Although this threshold has generally functioned well, it has engendered some negative practices to circumvent it and been criticized as too inflexible. We concur with the statisticians and methodologists who are currently arguing for more flexibility to the P value and more reliance on the 95% confidence interval, a shift that is likely to change future practice in data analysis and interpretation for oncology.

Assuntos

RESUMO

CBA is a sports event that allows fans to enjoy themselves and players to give full play, and traditional Chinese cultural values have a profound influence on it. This paper takes the 100 sets of historical rating data of the fourteen teams in CBA league as the basic basis, firstly, we simply deal with the 100 sets of historical rating data and use Excel function formula to find out the mean, extreme deviation and variance of each team, then we carry out SAS normal test, and we find that except for the very few data with large deviation, the historical rating data satisfy the normal distribution. Through the outlier algorithm to screen the values, compare the confidence intervals as well as carry out hypothesis testing, to objectively and scientifically explore the probability of each team winning the championship in the CBA league. Compare the probability of winning the championship of these fourteen teams and predict the top four teams in the CBA league to ensure that the prediction results are as reasonable as possible. With the help of hierarchical analysis to qualitatively analyze the level of each team, and then through cluster analysis to compare these data, and combined with the trend of the development of the world's basketball movement, the use of multiple regression and SPSS to analyze the level of the team's factors, in-depth thinking about the league, a more reasonable to give a more scientific to improve the probability of the team's winning the championship, and to promote better development of the basketball movement. (AU)

Assuntos