Dataset Information

Stroke aetiological classification reliability and effect on trial sample size: systematic review, meta-analysis and statistical modelling.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Inter-observer variability in stroke aetiological classification may have an effect on trial power and estimation of treatment effect. We modelled the effect of misclassification on required sample size in a hypothetical cardioembolic (CE) stroke trial. METHODS:We performed a systematic review to quantify the reliability (inter-observer variability) of various stroke aetiological classification systems. We then modelled the effect of this misclassification in a hypothetical trial of anticoagulant in CE stroke contaminated by patients with non-cardioembolic (non-CE) stroke aetiology. Rates of misclassification were based on the summary reliability estimates from our systematic review. We randomly sampled data from previous acute trials in CE and non-CE participants, using the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive. We used bootstrapping to model the effect of varying misclassification rates on sample size required to detect a between-group treatment effect across 5000 permutations. We described outcomes in terms of survival and stroke recurrence censored at 90?days. RESULTS:From 4655 titles, we found 14 articles describing three stroke classification systems. The inter-observer reliability of the classification systems varied from 'fair' to 'very good' and suggested misclassification rates of 5% and 20% for our modelling. The hypothetical trial, with 80% power and alpha 0.05, was able to show a difference in survival between anticoagulant and antiplatelet in CE with a sample size of 198 in both trial arms. Contamination of both arms with 5% misclassified participants inflated the required sample size to 237 and with 20% misclassification inflated the required sample size to 352, for equivalent trial power. For an outcome of stroke recurrence using the same data, base-case estimated sample size for 80% power and alpha 0.05 was n?=?502 in each arm, increasing to 605 at 5% contamination and 973 at 20% contamination. CONCLUSIONS:Stroke aetiological classification systems suffer from inter-observer variability, and the resulting misclassification may limit trial power. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Protocol available at reviewregistry540 .

SUBMITTER: Abdul-Rahim AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6368715 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stroke aetiological classification reliability and effect on trial sample size: systematic review, meta-analysis and statistical modelling.

Abdul-Rahim Azmil H AH Dickie David Alexander DA Selvarajah Johann R JR Lees Kennedy R KR Quinn Terence J TJ

Trials 20190208 1

<h4>Background</h4>Inter-observer variability in stroke aetiological classification may have an effect on trial power and estimation of treatment effect. We modelled the effect of misclassification on required sample size in a hypothetical cardioembolic (CE) stroke trial.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review to quantify the reliability (inter-observer variability) of various stroke aetiological classification systems. We then modelled the effect of this misclassification in a hypothet ...[more]

PMID: 30736833

Similar Datasets

Project description:Backgrounddata generated using 'omics' technologies are characterized by high dimensionality, where the number of features measured per subject vastly exceeds the number of subjects in the study. In this paper, we consider issues relevant in the design of biomedical studies in which the goal is the discovery of a subset of features and an associated algorithm that can predict a binary outcome, such as disease status. We compare the performance of four commonly used classifiers (K-Nearest Neighbors, Prediction Analysis for Microarrays, Random Forests and Support Vector Machines) in high-dimensionality data settings. We evaluate the effects of varying levels of signal-to-noise ratio in the dataset, imbalance in class distribution and choice of metric for quantifying performance of the classifier. To guide study design, we present a summary of the key characteristics of 'omics' data profiled in several human or animal model experiments utilizing high-content mass spectrometry and multiplexed immunoassay based techniques.Resultsthe analysis of data from seven 'omics' studies revealed that the average magnitude of effect size observed in human studies was markedly lower when compared to that in animal studies. The data measured in human studies were characterized by higher biological variation and the presence of outliers. The results from simulation studies indicated that the classifier Prediction Analysis for Microarrays (PAM) had the highest power when the class conditional feature distributions were Gaussian and outcome distributions were balanced. Random Forests was optimal when feature distributions were skewed and when class distributions were unbalanced. We provide a free open-source R statistical software library (MVpower) that implements the simulation strategy proposed in this paper.Conclusionno single classifier had optimal performance under all settings. Simulation studies provide useful guidance for the design of biomedical studies involving high-dimensionality data.

Project description:Inference on disease dynamics is typically performed using case reporting time series of symptomatic disease. The inferred dynamics will vary depending on the reporting patterns and surveillance system for the disease in question, and the inference will miss mild or underreported epidemics. To eliminate the variation introduced by differing reporting patterns and to capture asymptomatic or subclinical infection, inferential methods can be applied to serological data sets instead of case reporting data. To reconstruct complete disease dynamics, one would need to collect a serological time series. In the statistical analysis presented here, we consider a particular kind of serological time series with repeated, periodic collections of population-representative serum. We refer to this study design as a serial seroepidemiology (SSE) design, and we base the analysis on our epidemiological knowledge of influenza. We consider a study duration of three to four years, during which a single antigenic type of influenza would be circulating, and we evaluate our ability to reconstruct disease dynamics based on serological data alone. We show that the processes of reinfection, antibody generation, and antibody waning confound each other and are not always statistically identifiable, especially when dynamics resemble a non-oscillating endemic equilibrium behavior. We introduce some constraints to partially resolve this confounding, and we show that transmission rates and basic reproduction numbers can be accurately estimated in SSE study designs. Seasonal forcing is more difficult to identify as serology-based studies only detect oscillations in antibody titers of recovered individuals, and these oscillations are typically weaker than those observed for infected individuals. To accurately estimate the magnitude and timing of seasonal forcing, serum samples should be collected every two months and 200 or more samples should be included in each collection; this sample size estimate is sensitive to the antibody waning rate and the assumed level of seasonal forcing.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sources93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Data extractionSample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial.Data synthesisTrials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥ 1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials).ResultsTreatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00).ConclusionsTreatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.

Dataset Information

Stroke aetiological classification reliability and effect on trial sample size: systematic review, meta-analysis and statistical modelling.

Publications

Stroke aetiological classification reliability and effect on trial sample size: systematic review, meta-analysis and statistical modelling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets