ArticleAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2024
Effect size varies based on calculation method and may affect interpretation of treatment effect: an illustration using randomised clinical trials in osteoarthritis.
Article in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter study of the long-term safety and efficacy of subcutaneous administration of tanezumab in subjects with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee
A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the analgesic efficacy and safety of a dose titration regimen for the subcutaneous administration of tanezumab in subjects with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee
A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the analgesic efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous administration of tanezumab in subjects with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo illustrate how (standardised) effect sizes (ES) vary based on calculation method and to provide considerations for improved reporting.
methodsData from three trials of tanezumab in subjects with osteoarthritis were analyzed. ES of tanezumab versus comparator for WOMAC Pain (outcome) was defined as least squares difference between means (mixed model for repeated measures analysis) divided by a pooled standard deviation (SD) of outcome scores. Three approaches to computing the SD were evaluated: Baseline (the pooled SD of WOMAC Pain values at baseline [pooled across treatments]); Endpoint (the pooled SD of these values at the time primary endpoints were assessed); and Median (the median pooled SD of these values based on the pooled SDs across available timepoints). Bootstrap analyses were used to compute 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsES (95% CI) of tanezumab 2.5 mg based on Baseline, Endpoint, and Median SDs in one study were - 0.416 (- 0.796, - 0.060), - 0.195 (- 0.371, - 0.028), and - 0.196 (- 0.373, - 0.028), respectively; negative values indicate pain improvement. This pattern of ES differences (largest with Baseline SD, smallest with Endpoint SD, Median SD similar to Endpoint SD) was consistent across all studies and doses of tanezumab.
conclusionDifferences in ES affect interpretation of treatment effect. Therefore, we advocate clearly reporting individual elements of ES in addition to its overall calculation. This is particularly important when ES estimates are used to determine sample sizes for clinical trials, as larger ES will lead to smaller sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02697773, NCT02709486, and NCT02528188.
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.