Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23861800›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

Quantification of errors in ordinal outcome scales using shannon entropy: effect on sample size calculations.

Pitchaiah Mandava, Chase S Krumpelman, Jharna N Shah, Donna L White, Thomas A Kent

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pitchaiah MandavaThe Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Comprehensive Stroke Program, Houston, Texas, USA. pmandava@bcm.tmc.edu
Chase S Krumpelman
Jharna N Shah
Donna L White
Thomas A Kent

Funding

Epidemiology and Outcomes of Digestive and Liver Diseases: A Mentoring ProgramK24DK078154 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI EL-SERAG, HASHEM B · 2007 to 2016
$1.1M
Androgen Receptor Pathway and Risk of Hepatic Fibrosis in Hepatitis CR03DK095082 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI WHITE, DONNA LORRAINE · 2013 to 2014
$153k
NIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK078154-05)NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK078154NIDDK NIH HHS R03 DK095082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClinical trial outcomes often involve an ordinal scale of subjective functional assessments but the optimal way to quantify results is not clear. In stroke, the most commonly used scale, the modified Rankin Score (mRS), a range of scores ("Shift") is proposed as superior to dichotomization because of greater information transfer. The influence of known uncertainties in mRS assessment has not been quantified. We hypothesized that errors caused by uncertainties could be quantified by applying information theory. Using Shannon's model, we quantified errors of the "Shift" compared to dichotomized outcomes using published distributions of mRS uncertainties and applied this model to clinical trials.

methodsWe identified 35 randomized stroke trials that met inclusion criteria. Each trial's mRS distribution was multiplied with the noise distribution from published mRS inter-rater variability to generate an error percentage for "shift" and dichotomized cut-points. For the SAINT I neuroprotectant trial, considered positive by "shift" mRS while the larger follow-up SAINT II trial was negative, we recalculated sample size required if classification uncertainty was taken into account.

resultsConsidering the full mRS range, error rate was 26.1%±5.31 (Mean±SD). Error rates were lower for all dichotomizations tested using cut-points (e.g. mRS 1; 6.8%±2.89; overall p<0.001). Taking errors into account, SAINT I would have required 24% more subjects than were randomized.

conclusionWe show when uncertainty in assessments is considered, the lowest error rates are with dichotomization. While using the full range of mRS is conceptually appealing, a gain of information is counter-balanced by a decrease in reliability. The resultant errors need to be considered since sample size may otherwise be underestimated. In principle, we have outlined an approach to error estimation for any condition in which there are uncertainties in outcome assessment. We provide the user with programs to calculate and incorporate errors into sample size estimation.

Indexed as

BiasModels, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSample SizeStroke

Identifiers

PMID23861800
PMCPMC3702531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.