Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36722328›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2023

In praise of Prais-Winsten: An evaluation of methods used to account for autocorrelation in interrupted time series.

C Bottomley, M Ooko, A Gasparrini, R H Keogh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

4 authors.

C BottomleyLondon School of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, MRC International Statistics and Epidemiology Group, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5241-8412
M OokoLondon School of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, MRC International Statistics and Epidemiology Group, London, UK.
A GasparriniDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
R H KeoghDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6504-3253

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1Medical Research Council MR/S017968/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interrupted time series are increasingly being used to assess the population impact of public health interventions. These data are usually correlated over time (auto correlated) and this must be accounted for in the analysis. Typically, this is done using either the Prais-Winsten method, the Newey-West method, or autoregressive-moving-average (ARMA) modeling. In this paper, we illustrate these methods via a study of pneumococcal vaccine introduction and explore their performance under 20 simulated autocorrelation scenarios with sample sizes ranging between 20 and 300. We show that in terms of mean square error, the Prais-Winsten and ARMA methods perform best, while in terms of coverage the Prais-Winsten method generally performs better than other methods. All three methods are unbiased. As well as having good statistical properties, the Prais-Winsten method is attractive because it is decision-free and produces a single measure of autocorrelation that can be compared between studies and used to guide sample size calculations. We would therefore encourage analysts to consider using this simple method to analyze interrupted time series.

Indexed as

Interrupted Time Series AnalysisSample Sizeautocorrelationinterrupted time seriesintervention analysis

Identifiers

PMID36722328
PMCPMC10946734

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.