Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33654443›Full record

ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021

Three Statistical Approaches for Assessment of Intervention Effects: A Primer for Practitioners.

Lihua Li, Meaghan S Cuerden, Bian Liu, Salimah Shariff, Arsh K Jain, Madhu Mazumdar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lihua LiInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3154-9576
Meaghan S CuerdenLondon Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0171-5855
Bian LiuInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9166-693X
Salimah ShariffInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Arsh K JainLondon Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Madhu MazumdarInstitute for Healthcare Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3965-5146
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USLondon Health Sciences Centre · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CA

Funding

THE TISCH CANCER INSTITUTE - CANCER CENTER SUPPORT GRANTP30CA196521 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Deanna L Benson · 2015 to 2026
$35.4M
Residing in the Community with Dementia at the End of Life: Understanding Hospice Use and Residential SettingP30AG028741 · NIA · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI ORNA INTRATOR · 2010 to 2026
$21.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA196521NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028741
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStatistical methods to assess the impact of an intervention are increasingly used in clinical research settings. However, a comprehensive review of the methods geared toward practitioners is not yet available. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We provide a comprehensive review of three methods to assess the impact of an intervention: difference-in-differences (DID), segmented regression of interrupted time series (ITS), and interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA). We also compare the methods, and provide illustration of their use through three important healthcare-related applications.

resultsIn the first example, the DID estimate of the difference in health insurance coverage rates between expanded states and unexpanded states in the post-Medicaid expansion period compared to the pre-expansion period was 5.93 (95% CI, 3.99 to 7.89) percentage points. In the second example, a comparative segmented regression of ITS analysis showed that the mean imaging order appropriateness score in the emergency department at a tertiary care hospital exceeded that of the inpatient setting with a level change difference of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.73) and a trend change difference of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03) after the introduction of a clinical decision support tool. In the third example, the results from an interventional ARIMA analysis show that numbers of creatinine clearance tests decreased significantly within months of the start of eGFR reporting, with a magnitude of drop equal to -0.93 (95% CI, -1.22 to -0.64) tests per 100,000 adults and a rate of drop equal to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95 to 0.99) tests per 100,000 per adults per month. DISCUSSION: When choosing the appropriate method to model the intervention effect, it is necessary to consider the structure of the data, the study design, availability of an appropriate comparison group, sample size requirements, whether other interventions occur during the study window, and patterns in the data.

Indexed as

autoregressive integrated moving averagedifference-in-differenceinterrupted time seriessegmented regression

Identifiers

PMID33654443
PMCPMC7910529
OpenAlexW3133445812

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.