Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34174809›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Comparison of six statistical methods for interrupted time series studies: empirical evaluation of 190 published series.

Simon L Turner, Amalia Karahalios, Andrew B Forbes, Monica Taljaard, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Joanne E McKenzie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Help-seeking for gambling problems following expansion of Ontario's online gambling market and legalization of single-event sports betting.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Simon L TurnerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Amalia KarahaliosSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Andrew B ForbesSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Monica TaljaardClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. joanne.mckenzie@monash.edu.

Funding

Canadian Institute of Health Research FDN 143269
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Interrupted Time Series (ITS) is a quasi-experimental design commonly used in public health to evaluate the impact of interventions or exposures. Multiple statistical methods are available to analyse data from ITS studies, but no empirical investigation has examined how the different methods compare when applied to real-world datasets.

methodsA random sample of 200 ITS studies identified in a previous methods review were included. Time series data from each of these studies was sought. Each dataset was re-analysed using six statistical methods. Point and confidence interval estimates for level and slope changes, standard errors, p-values and estimates of autocorrelation were compared between methods.

resultsFrom the 200 ITS studies, including 230 time series, 190 datasets were obtained. We found that the choice of statistical method can importantly affect the level and slope change point estimates, their standard errors, width of confidence intervals and p-values. Statistical significance (categorised at the 5% level) often differed across the pairwise comparisons of methods, ranging from 4 to 25% disagreement. Estimates of autocorrelation differed depending on the method used and the length of the series.

conclusionsThe choice of statistical method in ITS studies can lead to substantially different conclusions about the impact of the interruption. Pre-specification of the statistical method is encouraged, and naive conclusions based on statistical significance should be avoided.

Indexed as

Public HealthResearch DesignHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisAutocorrelationEmpirical studyInterrupted Time SeriesPublic HealthSegmented RegressionStatistical Methods

Identifiers

PMID34174809
PMCPMC8235830

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.