ArticlePloS one2023
Investigation of commonly used aortic aneurysm growth rate metrics: Comparing their suitability for clinical and research applications.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An aneurysm is a pathological widening of a blood vessel. Aneurysms of the aorta are often asymptomatic until they rupture, killing approximately 10,000 Americans per year. Fortunately, rupture can be prevented through early detection and surgical repair. However, surgical risk outweighs rupture risk for small aortic aneurysms, necessitating a policy of surveillance. Understanding the growth rate of aneurysms is essential for determining appropriate surveillance windows. Further, identifying risk factors for fast growth can help identify potential interventions. However, studies in the literature have applied many different methods for defining the growth rate of abdominal aortic aneurysms. It is unclear which of these methods is most accurate and clinically meaningful, and whether these heterogeneous methodologies may have contributed to the varied results reported in the literature. To help future researchers best plan their studies and to help clinicians interpret existing studies, we compared five different models of aneurysmal growth rate. We examined their noise tolerance, temporal bias, predictive accuracy, and statistical power to detect risk factors. We found that hierarchical mixed effects models were more noise tolerant than traditional, unpooled models. We also found that linear models were sensitive to temporal bias, assigning lower growth rates to aneurysms that were detected earlier in their course. Our exponential mixed model was noise-tolerant, resistant to temporal bias, and detected the greatest number of clinical risk factors. We conclude that exponential mixed models may be optimal for large studies. Because our results suggest that choice of method can materially impact a study's findings, we recommend that future studies clearly state the method used and demonstrate its appropriateness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.