Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37041459›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

Sample size calculations for indirect standardization.

Yifei Wang, Philip Chu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. 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

2 authors.

Yifei WangDepartment of Radiology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA. yifei.wang@ucsf.edu.
Philip ChuDepartment of Radiology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA. bill.chu@ucsf.edu.

Funding

Late Effects of Treatment in Wilms Tumor Survivors and OffspringR01CA054498 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI LEISENRING, WENDY M · 1991 to 2017
$13.8M
CT DOSE CollaboratoryR01CA181191 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SMITH-BINDMAN, REBECCA · 2014 to 2019
$6.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA054498NCI NIH HHS R01 CA181191
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indirect standardization, and its associated parameter the standardized incidence ratio, is a commonly-used tool in hospital profiling for comparing the incidence of negative outcomes between an index hospital and a larger population of reference hospitals, while adjusting for confounding covariates. In statistical inference of the standardized incidence ratio, traditional methods often assume the covariate distribution of the index hospital to be known. This assumption severely compromises one's ability to compute required sample sizes for high-powered indirect standardization, as in contexts where sample size calculation is desired, there are usually no means of knowing this distribution. This paper presents novel statistical methodology to perform sample size calculation for the standardized incidence ratio without knowing the covariate distribution of the index hospital and without collecting information from the index hospital to estimate this covariate distribution. We apply our methods to simulation studies and to real hospitals, to assess both its capabilities in a vacuum and in comparison to traditional assumptions of indirect standardization.

Indexed as

HospitalsComputer SimulationHumansReference StandardsSample SizeHospital profilingIndirect standardizationSample size calculation

Identifiers

PMID37041459
PMCPMC10088176

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.