ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023
Comparison of different statistical models for the analysis of fracture events: findings from the Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT).
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. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Assessing Fall Risk: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFractures are rare events and can occur because of a fall. Fracture counts are distinct from other count data in that these data are positively skewed, inflated by excess zero counts, and events can recur over time. Analytical methods used to assess fracture data and account for these characteristics are limited in the literature.
methodsCommonly used models for count data include Poisson regression, negative binomial regression, hurdle regression, and zero-inflated regression models. In this paper, we compare four alternative statistical models to fit fracture counts using data from a large UK based clinical trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions in older people (Prevention of Falls Injury Trial; PreFIT).
resultsThe values of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion, the goodness-of-fit statistics, were the lowest for negative binomial model. The likelihood ratio test of no dispersion in the data showed strong evidence of dispersion (chi-square = 225.68, p-value < 0.001). This indicates that the negative binomial model fits the data better compared to the Poisson regression model. We also compared the standard negative binomial regression and mixed effects negative binomial models. The LR test showed no gain in fitting the data using mixed effects negative binomial model (chi-square = 1.67, p-value = 0.098) compared to standard negative binomial model.
conclusionsThe negative binomial regression model was the most appropriate and optimal fit model for fracture count analyses.
trial registrationThe PreFIT trial was registered as ISRCTN71002650.
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.