Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30696676›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Design characteristics and statistical methods used in interrupted time series studies evaluating public health interventions: protocol for a review.

Simon L Turner, Amalia Karahalios, Andrew B Forbes, Monica Taljaard, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Allen C Cheng, Lisa Bero, Joanne E McKenzie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The I-DECIDEDJournal of research in nursing : JRN · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluation of Nationwide Oral Mucosal Screening Program for Oral Cancer Mortality among Men in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Simon L TurnerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Amalia KarahaliosSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew B ForbesSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Monica TaljaardClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Allen C ChengSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lisa BeroFaculty of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn interrupted time series (ITS) design is an important observational design used to examine the effects of an intervention or exposure. This design has particular utility in public health where it may be impracticable or infeasible to use a randomised trial to evaluate health system-wide policies, or examine the impact of exposures (such as earthquakes). There have been relatively few studies examining the design characteristics and statistical methods used to analyse ITS designs. Further, there is a lack of guidance to inform the design and analysis of ITS studies.This is the first study in a larger project that aims to provide tools and guidance for researchers in the design and analysis of ITS studies. The objectives of this study are to (1) examine and report the design characteristics and statistical methods used in a random sample of contemporary ITS studies examining public health interventions or exposures that impact on health-related outcomes, and (2) create a repository of time series data extracted from ITS studies. Results from this study will inform the remainder of the project which will investigate the performance of a range of commonly used statistical methods, and create a repository of input parameters required for sample size calculation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will collate 200 ITS studies evaluating public health interventions or the impact of exposures. ITS studies will be identified from a search of the bibliometric database PubMed between the years 2013 and 2017, combined with stratified random sampling. From eligible studies, we will extract study characteristics, details of the statistical models and estimation methods, effect metrics and parameter estimates. Further, we will extract the time series data when available. We will use systematic review methods in the screening, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extraction of data. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required since information will only be extracted from published studies. Dissemination of the results will be through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. A repository of data extracted from the published ITS studies will be made publicly available.

Indexed as

Interrupted Time Series AnalysisPublic HealthResearch DesignStatistics as TopicHumansObservational Studies as TopicReview Literature as Topicinterrupted time seriespublic healthsegmented regressionstatistical methods

Identifiers

PMID30696676
PMCPMC6352832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.