ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2015
Could the clinical interpretability of subgroups detected using clustering methods be improved by using a novel two-stage approach?
Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning for Comparative Antidepressant Selection in Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Pooled it
- A Patient Stratification Approach to Identifying the Likelihood of Continued Chronic Depression and Relapse Following Treatment for Depression.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Adding Physical Impairment to Risk Stratification Improved Outcome Prediction in Low Back Pain.Physical therapy · 2021Observational
- Latent variable mixture modelling and individual treatment prediction.Behaviour research and therapy · 2020Article
- Identifying heterogeneous health profiles of primary care utilizers and their differential healthcare utilization and mortality - a retrospective cohort study.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Latent class analysis derived subgroups of low back pain patients - do they have prognostic capacity?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Observational
- Three subgroups of pain profiles identified in 227 women with arthritis: a latent class analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2017Article
- Identifying subgroups of patients using latent class analysis: should we use a single-stage or a two-stage approach? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Observational
- Using existing questionnaires in latent class analysis: should we use summary scores or single items as input? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain.Clinical epidemiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecognition of homogeneous subgroups of patients can usefully improve prediction of their outcomes and the targeting of treatment. There are a number of research approaches that have been used to recognise homogeneity in such subgroups and to test their implications. One approach is to use statistical clustering techniques, such as Cluster Analysis or Latent Class Analysis, to detect latent relationships between patient characteristics. Influential patient characteristics can come from diverse domains of health, such as pain, activity limitation, physical impairment, social role participation, psychological factors, biomarkers and imaging. However, such 'whole person' research may result in data-driven subgroups that are complex, difficult to interpret and challenging to recognise clinically. This paper describes a novel approach to applying statistical clustering techniques that may improve the clinical interpretability of derived subgroups and reduce sample size requirements.
methodsThis approach involves clustering in two sequential stages. The first stage involves clustering within health domains and therefore requires creating as many clustering models as there are health domains in the available data. This first stage produces scoring patterns within each domain. The second stage involves clustering using the scoring patterns from each health domain (from the first stage) to identify subgroups across all domains. We illustrate this using chest pain data from the baseline presentation of 580 patients.
resultsThe new two-stage clustering resulted in two subgroups that approximated the classic textbook descriptions of musculoskeletal chest pain and atypical angina chest pain. The traditional single-stage clustering resulted in five clusters that were also clinically recognisable but displayed less distinct differences.
conclusionsIn this paper, a new approach to using clustering techniques to identify clinically useful subgroups of patients is suggested. Research designs, statistical methods and outcome metrics suitable for performing that testing are also described. This approach has potential benefits but requires broad testing, in multiple patient samples, to determine its clinical value. The usefulness of the approach is likely to be context-specific, depending on the characteristics of the available data and the research question being asked of it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.