ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
Sensitivity of Responder Effects to Different Thresholds and Control Group Means on Patient-Reported Outcomes: Varying Group Standard Deviations.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited research has been conducted to assess the sensitivity of responder effects (i.e., the difference in proportion of response between treatment and control groups) between interventions to different dichotomous threshold scores created from a continuous patient-reported outcome (PRO) (e.g., within-patient improvement of 10 or more points in PRO scores). We investigated the subject in several complementary ways: (1) local sensitivity in magnitude to measure the impact on responder effect to small changes in the threshold value; (2) sensitivity in direction to capture changes in the direction of responder effects with changes in the threshold; (3) average sensitivity in magnitude to measure the impact on responder effect to uncertainty in the threshold; and (4) the standard deviation (width) of Holland's hill (distribution of responder effects across threshold scores) to gauge the robustness of responder effects to different thresholds. We focused on normally distributed outcomes where within-group standard deviations may differ between intervention groups. Our findings indicate that, relative to equal group standard deviation, unequal group standard deviations give consistently higher levels of sensitivity for very small increases in the threshold value. For the case of no mean continuous treatment effect, responder analyses will generally misrepresent the direction of mean treatment effect when there is unequal group variability in the continuous PRO measure. By quantifying and elucidating subtle points on the sensitivity of responder effects-and the additional challenges on interpretation imposed by unequal group standard deviations-this article could be useful in the careful design, analysis, and interpretation of PRO studies.
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.