Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33336317›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2020

Comparison of Precision and Accuracy of Five Methods to Analyse Total Score Data.

Gustaf J Wellhagen, Mats O Karlsson, Maria C Kjellsson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Gustaf J WellhagenPharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Box 580, 751 23, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mats O KarlssonPharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Box 580, 751 23, Uppsala, Sweden.
Maria C KjellssonPharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Box 580, 751 23, Uppsala, Sweden. maria.kjellsson@farmaci.uu.se.ORCID 0000-0003-3531-9452

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalSeverity of Illness IndexData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansParkinson DiseaseTreatment Outcomebounded integer modelcomposite scale dataIRT-informed total score analysismixed models for repeated measurestotal score data

Identifiers

PMID33336317
PMCPMC7746559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.