Dataset Information

Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods.

ABSTRACT: Often repeated measures data are summarized into pre-post-treatment measurements. Various methods exist in the literature for estimating and testing treatment effect, including ANOVA, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and linear mixed modeling (LMM). Under the first two methods, outcomes can either be modeled as the post treatment measurement (ANOVA-POST or ANCOVA-POST), or a change score between pre and post measurements (ANOVA-CHANGE, ANCOVA-CHANGE). In LMM, the outcome is modeled as a vector of responses with or without Kenward-Rogers adjustment. We consider five methods common in the literature, and discuss them in terms of supporting simulations and theoretical derivations of variance. Consistent with existing literature, our results demonstrate that each method leads to unbiased treatment effect estimates, and based on precision of estimates, 95% coverage probability, and power, ANCOVA modeling of either change scores or post-treatment score as the outcome, prove to be the most effective. We further demonstrate each method in terms of a real data example to exemplify comparisons in real clinical context.

SUBMITTER: O'Connell NS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6290914 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods.

O'Connell Nathaniel S NS Dai Lin L Jiang Yunyun Y Speiser Jaime L JL Ward Ralph R Wei Wei W Carroll Rachel R Gebregziabher Mulugeta M

Journal of biometrics & biostatistics 20170201 1

Often repeated measures data are summarized into pre-post-treatment measurements. Various methods exist in the literature for estimating and testing treatment effect, including ANOVA, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and linear mixed modeling (LMM). Under the first two methods, outcomes can either be modeled as the post treatment measurement (ANOVA-POST or ANCOVA-POST), or a change score between pre and post measurements (ANOVA-CHANGE, ANCOVA-CHANGE). In LMM, the outcome is modeled as a vector o ...[more]

PMID: 30555734

Similar Datasets

Project description:Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an extremely complex condition due to heterogeneity in injury mechanism, underlying conditions, and secondary injury. Pre-clinical and clinical researchers face challenges with reproducibility that negatively impact translation and therapeutic development for improved TBI patient outcomes. To address this challenge, TBI Pre-clinical Working Groups expanded upon previous efforts and developed common data elements (CDEs) to describe the most frequently used experimental parameters. The working groups created 913 CDEs to describe study metadata, animal characteristics, animal history, injury models, and behavioral tests. Use cases applied a set of commonly used CDEs to address and evaluate the degree of missing data resulting from combining legacy data from different laboratories for two different outcome measures (Morris water maze [MWM]; RotorRod/Rotarod). Data were cleaned and harmonized to Form Structures containing the relevant CDEs and subjected to missing value analysis. For the MWM dataset (358 animals from five studies, 44 CDEs), 50% of the CDEs contained at least one missing value, while for the Rotarod dataset (97 animals from three studies, 48 CDEs), over 60% of CDEs contained at least one missing value. Overall, 35% of values were missing across the MWM dataset, and 33% of values were missing for the Rotarod dataset, demonstrating both the feasibility and the challenge of combining legacy datasets using CDEs. The CDEs and the associated forms created here are available to the broader pre-clinical research community to promote consistent and comprehensive data acquisition, as well as to facilitate data sharing and formation of data repositories. In addition to addressing the challenge of standardization in TBI pre-clinical studies, this effort is intended to bring attention to the discrepancies in assessment and outcome metrics among pre-clinical laboratories and ultimately accelerate translation to clinical research.

Project description:BackgroundMedical information management for stroke patients is currently a very time-consuming endeavor. There are clear guidelines and procedures to treat patients having acute stroke, but it is not known how well these established practices are reflected in patient documentation.ObjectiveThis study compares a variety of documentation processes regarding stroke. The main objective of this work is to provide an overview of the most commonly occurring medical concepts in stroke documentation and identify overlaps between different documentation contexts to allow for the definition of a core data set that could be used in potential data interfaces.MethodsMedical source documentation forms from different documentation contexts, including hospitals, clinical trials, registries, and international standards, regarding stroke treatment followed by rehabilitation were digitized in the operational data model. Each source data element was semantically annotated using the Unified Medical Language System. The concept codes were analyzed for semantic overlaps. A concept was considered common if it appeared in at least two documentation contexts. The resulting common concepts were extended with implementation details, including data types and permissible values based on frequent patterns of source data elements, using an established expert-based and semiautomatic approach.ResultsIn total, 3287 data elements were identified, and 1051 of these emerged as unique medical concepts. The 100 most frequent medical concepts cover 9.51% (100/1051) of all concept occurrences in stroke documentation, and the 50 most frequent concepts cover 4.75% (50/1051). A list of common data elements was implemented in different standardized machine-readable formats on a public metadata repository for interoperable reuse.ConclusionsStandardization of medical documentation is a prerequisite for data exchange as well as the transferability and reuse of data. In the long run, standardization would save time and money and extend the capabilities for which such data could be used. In the context of this work, a lack of standardization was observed regarding current information management. Free-form text fields and intricate questions complicate automated data access and transfer between institutions. This work also revealed the potential of a unified documentation process as a core data set of the 50 most frequent common data elements, accounting for 34% of the documentation in medical information management. Such a data set offers a starting point for standardized and interoperable data collection in routine care, quality management, and clinical research.

Project description:Mass spectrometry is increasingly being used to discover proteins or protein profiles associated with disease. Experimental design of mass-spectrometry studies has come under close scrutiny and the importance of strict protocols for sample collection is now understood. However, the question of how best to process the large quantities of data generated is still unanswered. Main challenges for the analysis are the choice of proper pre-processing and classification methods. While these two issues have been investigated in isolation, we propose to use the classification of patient samples as a clinically relevant benchmark for the evaluation of pre-processing methods.Two in-house generated clinical SELDI-TOF MS datasets are used in this study as an example of high throughput mass-spectrometry data. We perform a systematic comparison of two commonly used pre-processing methods as implemented in Ciphergen ProteinChip Software and in the Cromwell package. With respect to reproducibility, Ciphergen and Cromwell pre-processing are largely comparable. We find that the overlap between peaks detected by either Ciphergen ProteinChip Software or Cromwell is large. This is especially the case for the more stringent peak detection settings. Moreover, similarity of the estimated intensities between matched peaks is high.We evaluate the pre-processing methods using five different classification methods. Classification is done in a double cross-validation protocol using repeated random sampling to obtain an unbiased estimate of classification accuracy. No pre-processing method significantly outperforms the other for all peak detection settings evaluated.We use classification of patient samples as a clinically relevant benchmark for the evaluation of pre-processing methods. Both pre-processing methods lead to similar classification results on an ovarian cancer and a Gaucher disease dataset. However, the settings for pre-processing parameters lead to large differences in classification accuracy and are therefore of crucial importance. We advocate the evaluation over a range of parameter settings when comparing pre-processing methods. Our analysis also demonstrates that reliable classification results can be obtained with a combination of strict sample handling and a well-defined classification protocol on clinical samples.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the difference in completeness of reporting and methodological conduct of published prediction models before and after publication of the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.MethodsIn the seven general medicine journals with the highest impact factor, we compared the completeness of the reporting and the quality of the methodology of prediction model studies published between 2012 and 2014 (pre-TRIPOD) with studies published between 2016 and 2017 (post-TRIPOD). For articles published in the post-TRIPOD period, we examined whether there was improved reporting for articles (1) citing the TRIPOD statement, and (2) published in journals that published the TRIPOD statement.ResultsA total of 70 articles was included (pre-TRIPOD: 32, post-TRIPOD: 38). No improvement was seen for the overall percentage of reported items after the publication of the TRIPOD statement (pre-TRIPOD 74%, post-TRIPOD 76%, 95% CI of absolute difference: -4% to 7%). For the individual TRIPOD items, an improvement was seen for 16 (44%) items, while 3 (8%) items showed no improvement and 17 (47%) items showed a deterioration. Post-TRIPOD, there was no improved reporting for articles citing the TRIPOD statement, nor for articles published in journals that published the TRIPOD statement. The methodological quality improved in the post-TRIPOD period. More models were externally validated in the same article (absolute difference 8%, post-TRIPOD: 39%), used measures of calibration (21%, post-TRIPOD: 87%) and discrimination (9%, post-TRIPOD: 100%), and used multiple imputation for handling missing data (12%, post-TRIPOD: 50%).ConclusionsSince the publication of the TRIPOD statement, some reporting and methodological aspects have improved. Prediction models are still often poorly developed and validated and many aspects remain poorly reported, hindering optimal clinical application of these models. Long-term effects of the TRIPOD statement publication should be evaluated in future studies.

Dataset Information

Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods.

Publications

Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets