Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33827666›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2021

The new accounting for expected adjusted effect test (AEAE test) has higher positive predictive value than a zero-order significance test.

Kimmo Sorjonen, Gustav Nilsonne, Bo Melin, Michael Ingre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Kimmo SorjonenDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. kimmo.sorjonen@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9930-057X
Gustav NilsonneDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bo MelinDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Michael IngreDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe present simulation study aimed to assess positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for our newly introduced Accounting for Expected Adjusted Effect test (AEAE test) and compare it to PPV and NPV for a traditional zero-order significance test.

resultsThe AEAE test exhibited greater PPV compared to a traditional zero-order significance test, especially with a strong true adjusted effect, low prior probability, high degree of confounding, large sample size, high reliability in the measurement of predictor X and outcome Y, and low reliability in the measurement of confounder Z. The zero-order significance test, on the other hand, exhibited higher NPV, except for some combinations of high degree of confounding and large sample size, or low reliability in the measurement of Z and high reliability in the measurement of X/Y, in which case the zero-order significance test can be completely uninformative. Taken together, the findings demonstrate desirable statistical properties for the AEAE test compared to a traditional zero-order significance test.

Indexed as

Predictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityAccounting for expected effectConfoundingNegative predictive valuePositive predictive valuePrior probabilityRegression analysisReliabilitySimulation

Identifiers

PMID33827666
PMCPMC8028113

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.