ArticleThe AAPS journal2020
Comparison of Precision and Accuracy of Five Methods to Analyse Total Score Data.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Comparison of Two Methods for Determining Item Characteristic Functions and Latent Variable Time-Course for Pharmacometric Item Response Models.The AAPS journal · 2024Article
- An Item Response Theory-Informed Strategy to Model Total Score Data from Composite Scales.The AAPS journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total score (TS) data is generated from composite scales consisting of several questions/items, such as the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). The analysis method that most fully uses the information gathered is item response theory (IRT) models, but these are complex and require item-level data which may not be available. Therefore, the TS is commonly analysed with standard continuous variable (CV) models, which do not respect the bounded nature of data. Bounded integer (BI) models do respect the data nature but are not as extensively researched. Mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) are an alternative that requires few assumptions and handles dropout without bias. If an IRT model exists, the expected mean and standard deviation of TS can be computed through IRT-informed functions-which allows CV and BI models to estimate parameters on the IRT scale. The fit, performance on external data and parameter precision (when applicable) of CV, BI and MMRM to analyse simulated TS data from the MDS-UPDRS motor subscale are investigated in this work. All models provided accurate predictions and residuals without trends, but the fit of CV and BI models was improved by IRT-informed functions. The IRT-informed BI model had more precise parameter estimates than the IRT-informed CV model. The IRT-informed models also had the best performance on external data, while the MMRM model was worst. In conclusion, (1) IRT-informed functions improve TS analyses and (2) IRT-informed BI models had more precise IRT parameter estimates than IRT-informed CV models.
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.