Dataset Information

Partial factorial trials: comparing methods for statistical analysis and economic evaluation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Partial factorial trials compare two or more pairs of treatments on overlapping patient groups, randomising some (but not all) patients to more than one comparison. The aims of this research were to compare different methods for conducting and analysing economic evaluations on partial factorial trials and assess the implications of considering factors simultaneously rather than drawing independent conclusions about each comparison. METHODS:We estimated total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) within 10 years of surgery for 2252 patients in the Knee Arthroplasty Trial who were randomised to one or more comparisons of different surgical types. We compared three analytical methods: an "at-the-margins" analysis including all patients randomised to each comparison (assuming no interaction); an "inside-the-table" analysis that included interactions but focused on those patients randomised to two comparisons; and a Bayesian vetted bootstrap, which used results from patients randomised to one comparison as priors when estimating outcomes for patients randomised to two comparisons. Outcomes comprised incremental costs, QALYs and net benefits. RESULTS:Qualitative interactions were observed for costs, QALYs and net benefits. Bayesian bootstrapping generally produced smaller standard errors than inside-the-table analysis and gave conclusions that were consistent with at-the-margins analysis, while allowing for these interactions. By contrast, inside-the-table gave different conclusions about which intervention had the highest net benefits compared with other analyses. CONCLUSIONS:All analyses of partial factorial trials should explore interactions and assess whether results are sensitive to assumptions about interactions, either as a primary analysis or as a sensitivity analysis. For partial factorial trials closely mirroring routine clinical practice, at-the-margins analysis may provide a reasonable estimate of average costs and benefits for the whole trial population, even in the presence of interactions. However, such conclusions will be misleading if there are large interactions or if the proportion of patients allocated to different treatments differs markedly from what occurs in clinical practice. The Bayesian bootstrap provides an alternative to at-the-margins analysis for analysing clinical or economic endpoints from partial factorial trials, which allows for interactions while making use of the whole sample. The same techniques could be applied to analyses of clinical endpoints. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN, ISRCTN45837371 . Registered on 25 April 2003.

SUBMITTER: Dakin HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6097309 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Partial factorial trials: comparing methods for statistical analysis and economic evaluation.

Dakin Helen A HA Gray Alastair M AM MacLennan Graeme S GS Morris Richard W RW Murray David W DW

Trials 20180816 1

<h4>Background</h4>Partial factorial trials compare two or more pairs of treatments on overlapping patient groups, randomising some (but not all) patients to more than one comparison. The aims of this research were to compare different methods for conducting and analysing economic evaluations on partial factorial trials and assess the implications of considering factors simultaneously rather than drawing independent conclusions about each comparison.<h4>Methods</h4>We estimated total costs and q ...[more]

PMID: 30115104

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:DNA methylation offers an excellent example for elucidating how epigenetic information affects gene expression. ? values and M values are commonly used to quantify DNA methylation. Statistical methods applicable to DNA methylation data analysis span a number of approaches such as Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, permutation test, empirical Bayes method, and bump hunting method. Nonetheless, selection of an optimal statistical method can be challenging when different methods generate inconsistent results from the same data set. RESULTS:We compared six statistical approaches relevant to DNA methylation microarray analysis in terms of false discovery rate control, statistical power, and stability through simulation studies and real data examples. Observable differences were noticed between ? values and M values only when methylation levels were correlated across CpG loci. For small sample size (n=3 or 6 in each group), both the empirical Bayes and bump hunting methods showed appropriate FDR control and the highest power when methylation levels across CpG loci were independent. Only the bump hunting method showed appropriate FDR control and the highest power when methylation levels across CpG sites were correlated. For medium (n=12 in each group) and large sample sizes (n=24 in each group), all methods compared had similar power, except for the permutation test whenever the proportion of differentially methylated loci was low. For all sample sizes, the bump hunting method had the lowest stability in terms of standard deviation of total discoveries whenever the proportion of differentially methylated loci was large. The apparent test power comparisons based on raw p-values from DNA methylation studies on ovarian cancer and rheumatoid arthritis provided results as consistent as those obtained in the simulation studies. Overall, these results provide guidance for optimal statistical methods selection under different scenarios. CONCLUSIONS:For DNA methylation studies with small sample size, the bump hunting method and the empirical Bayes method are recommended when DNA methylation levels across CpG loci are independent, while only the bump hunting method is recommended when DNA methylation levels are correlated across CpG loci. All methods are acceptable for medium or large sample sizes.

Project description:BackgroundSingle-cell RNA Sequencing is gaining popularity in recent years. Compared to bulk RNA-Seq, single-cell RNA Sequencing allows the gene expression being measured within individual cells instead of mean gene expression levels across all cells in the sample. Thus, cell-to-cell variation of gene expressions could be examined. Gene differential expression analysis remains the major purpose in most single-cell RNA sequencing experiments and many methods have been developed in recent years to conduct gene differential expression analysis for single-cell RNA sequencing data.ResultsThrough simulation studies and real data examples, we evaluated the performance of five open-source popular methods used for gene differential expression analysis in single-cell RNA sequencing data. The five methods included DEsingle (Zero-inflated negative binomial model), Linnorm (Empirical Bayes method on transformed count data using the limma package), monocle (An approximate Chi-Square likelihood ratio test), MAST (A generalized linear hurdle model), and DESeq2 (A generalized linear model with empirical Bayes approach and also commonly used for bulk RNA sequencing differential express analyses). We assessed the false discovery rate (FDR) control, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve for all five methods under different sample sizes, distribution assumptions, and proportions of zeros in the data.ConclusionsWe found the MAST method performed the best among the five methods compared with the largest AUROC values across all tested sample sizes and different proportion of truly differential expressed genes, when the data followed negative binomial distributions. When the sample size increased to 100 in each group, the MAST method showed the best performance with the highest AUROC regardless of the data distributions. If the excess zeros were first filtered out before the gene differential analyses, the DESingle, Linnorm, and DESeq2 performed relatively better than the MAST and the monocle methods with higher AUROC values.

Project description:The increase of multidrug resistance and resistance to last-line antibiotics is a major global public health threat. Although surveillance programs provide useful current and historical information on the scale of the problem, the future emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance is uncertain, and quantifying this uncertainty is crucial for guiding decisions about investment in antibiotics and resistance control strategies. Mathematical and statistical models capable of projecting future rates are challenged by the paucity of data and the complexity of the emergence and spread of resistance, but experts have relevant knowledge. We use the Classical Model of structured expert judgment to elicit projections with uncertainty bounds of resistance rates through 2026 for nine pathogen-antibiotic pairs in four European countries and empirically validate the assessments against data on a set of calibration questions. The performance-weighted combination of experts in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom projected that resistance for five pairs on the World Health Organization's priority pathogens list (E. coli and K. pneumoniae resistant to third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenems and MRSA) would remain below 50% in 2026. In Italy, although upper bounds of 90% credible ranges exceed 50% resistance for some pairs, the medians suggest Italy will sustain or improve its current rates. We compare these expert projections to statistical forecasts based on historical data from the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net). Results from the statistical models differ from each other and from the judgmental forecasts in many cases. The judgmental forecasts include information from the experts about the impact of current and future shifts in infection control, antibiotic usage, and other factors that cannot be easily captured in statistical forecasts, demonstrating the potential of structured expert judgment as a tool for better understanding the uncertainty about future antibiotic resistance.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Statistical methods for the analysis of harm outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are rarely used, and there is a reliance on simple approaches to display information such as in frequency tables. We aimed to identify whether any statistical methods had been specifically developed to analyse prespecified secondary harm outcomes and non-specific emerging adverse events (AEs). METHODS:A scoping review was undertaken to identify articles that proposed original methods or the original application of existing methods for the analysis of AEs that aimed to detect potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in phase II-IV parallel controlled group trials. Methods where harm outcomes were the (co)-primary outcome were excluded. Information was extracted on methodological characteristics such as: whether the method required the event to be prespecified or could be used to screen emerging events; and whether it was applied to individual events or the overall AE profile. Each statistical method was appraised and a taxonomy was developed for classification. RESULTS:Forty-four eligible articles proposing 73 individual methods were included. A taxonomy was developed and articles were categorised as: visual summary methods (8 articles proposing 20 methods); hypothesis testing methods (11 articles proposing 16 methods); estimation methods (15 articles proposing 24 methods); or methods that provide decision-making probabilities (10 articles proposing 13 methods). Methods were further classified according to whether they required a prespecified event (9 articles proposing 12 methods), or could be applied to emerging events (35 articles proposing 61 methods); and if they were (group) sequential methods (10 articles proposing 12 methods) or methods to perform final/one analyses (34 articles proposing 61 methods). CONCLUSIONS:This review highlighted that a broad range of methods exist for AE analysis. Immediate implementation of some of these could lead to improved inference for AE data in RCTs. For example, a well-designed graphic can be an effective means to communicate complex AE data and methods appropriate for counts, time-to-event data and that avoid dichotomising continuous outcomes can improve efficiencies in analysis. Previous research has shown that adoption of such methods in the scientific press is limited and that strategies to support change are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=97442.

Dataset Information

Partial factorial trials: comparing methods for statistical analysis and economic evaluation.

Publications

Partial factorial trials: comparing methods for statistical analysis and economic evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets