Dataset Information

All metrics are equal, but some metrics are more equal than others: A systematic search and review on the use of the term 'metric'.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To examine the use of the term 'metric' in health and social sciences' literature, focusing on the interval scale implication of the term in Modern Test Theory (MTT). MATERIALS AND METHODS:A systematic search and review on MTT studies including 'metric' or 'interval scale' was performed in the health and social sciences literature. The search was restricted to 2001-2005 and 2011-2015. A Text Mining algorithm was employed to operationalize the eligibility criteria and to explore the uses of 'metric'. The paradigm of each included article (Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT), Item Response Theory (IRT) or both), as well as its type (Theoretical, Methodological, Teaching, Application, Miscellaneous) were determined. An inductive thematic analysis on the first three types was performed. RESULTS:70.6% of the 1337 included articles were allocated to RMT, and 68.4% were application papers. Among the number of uses of 'metric', it was predominantly a synonym of 'scale'; as adjective, it referred to measurement or quantification. Three incompatible themes 'only RMT/all MTT/no MTT models can provide interval measures' were identified, but 'interval scale' was considerably more mentioned in RMT than in IRT. CONCLUSION:'Metric' is used in many different ways, and there is no consensus on which MTT metric has interval scale properties. Nevertheless, when using the term 'metric', the authors should specify the level of the metric being used (ordinal, ordered, interval, ratio), and justify why according to them the metric is at that level.

SUBMITTER: Adroher ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5839589 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

All metrics are equal, but some metrics are more equal than others: A systematic search and review on the use of the term 'metric'.

Adroher Núria Duran ND Prodinger Birgit B Fellinghauer Carolina Saskia CS Tennant Alan A

PloS one 20180306 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the use of the term 'metric' in health and social sciences' literature, focusing on the interval scale implication of the term in Modern Test Theory (MTT).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A systematic search and review on MTT studies including 'metric' or 'interval scale' was performed in the health and social sciences literature. The search was restricted to 2001-2005 and 2011-2015. A Text Mining algorithm was employed to operationalize the eligibility criteria and to ...[more]

PMID: 29509813

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious reports identifying discordance between multiparameter tests at the individual patient level have been largely attributed to methodological shortcomings of multiple in silico studies. Comparisons between tests, when performed using actual diagnostic assays, have been predicted to demonstrate high degrees of concordance. OPTIMA prelim compared predicted risk stratification and subtype classification of different multiparameter tests performed directly on the same population.MethodsThree hundred thirteen women with early breast cancer were randomized to standard (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or test-directed (chemotherapy if Oncotype DX recurrence score >25) treatment. Risk stratification was also determined with Prosigna (PAM50), MammaPrint, MammaTyper, NexCourse Breast (IHC4-AQUA), and conventional IHC4 (IHC4). Subtype classification was provided by Blueprint, MammaTyper, and Prosigna.ResultsOncotype DX predicted a higher proportion of tumors as low risk (82.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.8% to 86.4%) than were predicted low/intermediate risk using Prosigna (65.5%, 95% CI?=?60.1% to 70.9%), IHC4 (72.0%, 95% CI?=?66.5% to 77.5%), MammaPrint (61.4%, 95% CI?=?55.9% to 66.9%), or NexCourse Breast (61.6%, 95% CI?=?55.8% to 67.4%). Strikingly, the five tests showed only modest agreement when dichotomizing results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Only 119 (39.4%) tumors were classified uniformly as either low/intermediate risk or high risk, and 183 (60.6%) were assigned to different risk categories by different tests, although 94 (31.1%) showed agreement between four of five tests. All three subtype tests assigned 59.5% to 62.4% of tumors to luminal A subtype, but only 121 (40.1%) were classified as luminal A by all three tests and only 58 (19.2%) were uniformly assigned as nonluminal A. Discordant subtyping was observed in 123 (40.7%) tumors.ConclusionsExisting evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests that current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorization and subtype information.

Project description:ObjectivesAs coronavirus disease 2019 is a novel disease, treatment strategies continue to be debated. This provides the intensive care community with a unique opportunity as the population of coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is relatively homogeneous compared with other ICU populations. We hypothesize that the novelty of coronavirus disease 2019 and the uncertainty over its similarity with noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome resulted in substantial practice variation between hospitals during the first and second waves of coronavirus disease 2019 patients.DesignMulticenter retrospective cohort study.SettingTwenty-five hospitals in the Netherlands from February 2020 to July 2020, and 14 hospitals from August 2020 to December 2020.PatientsOne thousand two hundred ninety-four critically ill intubated adult ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were selected from the Dutch Data Warehouse. Patients intubated for less than 24 hours, transferred patients, and patients still admitted at the time of data extraction were excluded.Measurements and main resultsWe aimed to estimate between-ICU practice variation in selected ventilation parameters (positive end-expiratory pressure, Fio2, set respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute volume, and percentage of time spent in a prone position) on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of intubation, adjusted for patient characteristics as well as severity of illness based on Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH, ventilatory ratio, and dynamic respiratory system compliance during controlled ventilation. Using multilevel linear mixed-effects modeling, we found significant (p ≤ 0.001) variation between ICUs in all ventilation parameters on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of intubation for both waves.ConclusionsThis is the first study to clearly demonstrate significant practice variation between ICUs related to mechanical ventilation parameters that are under direct control by intensivists. Their effect on clinical outcomes for both coronavirus disease 2019 and other critically ill mechanically ventilated patients could have widespread implications for the practice of intensive care medicine and should be investigated further by causal inference models and clinical trials.

Dataset Information

All metrics are equal, but some metrics are more equal than others: A systematic search and review on the use of the term 'metric'.

Publications

All metrics are equal, but some metrics are more equal than others: A systematic search and review on the use of the term 'metric'.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets