ReviewThe AAPS journal2019
On the Comparison of Methods in Analyzing Bounded Outcome Score Data.
Review in The AAPS journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous and oral (S)-ketamine: Investigating metabolite contribution to subjective effects.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
- Employing zero-inflated beta distribution in an exposure-response analysis of TYK2/JAK1 inhibitor brepocitinib in patients with plaque psoriasis.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Trial
- Characterization of exposure-Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes relationship in subjects with early Alzheimer's disease from the aducanumab Phase 3 trials.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2023Trial
- Application of Beta-Distribution and Combined Uniform and Binomial Methods in Longitudinal Modeling of Bounded Outcome Score Data.The AAPS journal · 2020Trial
- Tutorial on Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Development.Clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Comparison of the power and type 1 error of total score models for drug effect detection in clinical trials.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Article
- Likelihood comparisons in bounded outcome score analysis must be internally consistent.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Article
- Moving Beyond Boundaries: Utilization of Longitudinal Exposure-Response Model for Bounded Outcome Score to Inform Decision Making in the Accelerated Drug Development Paradigm.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2024Article
- Bounded Integer Modeling of Symptom Scales Specific to Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.The AAPS journal · 2021Article
- Facilitating Longitudinal Exposure-Response Modeling of a Composite Endpoint Using the Joint Modeling of Sparsely and Frequently Collected Subcomponents.The AAPS journal · 2020Article
- Applying Beta Distribution in Analyzing Bounded Outcome Score Data.The AAPS journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trial endpoints often take the form of bounded outcome scores (BOS) which report a discrete set of values on a finite range. Conceptually such endpoints are ordered categorical in nature, but in practice they are often analyzed as continuous variables, which may result in data range violations and difficulties to handle data skewness. Analysis methods dedicated for BOS data have been proposed; however, much confusion exists among pharmacometricians on how to compare the possible methods. This commentary reviews the main methods used in pharmacometrics applications and discusses their theoretical and practical comparisons. The expected performance of some conceptually appealing methods in different situations is discussed, and a guideline is provided on selecting analysis methods in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31451952What 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.