Literature DB >> 16143965

Probabilistic index: an intuitive non-parametric approach to measuring the size of treatment effects.

Laura Acion1, John J Peterson, Scott Temple, Stephan Arndt.   

Abstract

Effect sizes (ES) tell the magnitude of the difference between treatments and, ideally, should tell clinicians how likely their patients will benefit from the treatment. Currently used ES are expressed in statistical rather than in clinically useful terms and may not give clinicians the appropriate information. We restrict our discussion to studies with two groups: one with n patients receiving a new treatment and the other with m patients receiving the usual or no treatment. The standardized mean difference (e.g. Cohen's d) is a well-known index for continuous outcomes. There is some intuitive value to d, but measuring improvement in standard deviations (SD) is a statistical concept that may not help a clinician. How much improvement is a half SD? A more intuitive and simple-to-calculate ES is the probability that the response of a patient given the new treatment (X) is better than the one for a randomly chosen patient given the old or no treatment (Y) (i.e. P(X > Y), larger values meaning better outcomes). This probability has an immediate identity with the area under the curve (AUC) measure in procedures for receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve comparing responses to two treatments. It also can be easily calculated from the Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon, or Kendall tau statistics. We describe the characteristics of an ideal ES. We propose P(X > Y) as an alternative index, summarize its correspondence with well-known non-parametric statistics, compare it to the standardized mean difference index, and illustrate with clinical data. Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16143965     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  53 in total

Review 1.  Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Joseph C Cappelleri; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.045

2.  Evaluating the usability of a free electronic health record for training.

Authors:  Robert Hoyt; Kenneth Adler; Brandy Ziesemer; Georgina Palombo
Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag       Date:  2013-04-01

3.  Self-report of cognitive impairment and mini-mental state examination performance in PRKN, LRRK2, and GBA carriers with early onset Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Roy N Alcalay; Helen Mejia-Santana; Ming X Tang; Brian Rakitin; Llency Rosado; Barbara Ross; Miguel Verbitsky; Sergey Kisselev; Elan D Louis; Cynthia L Comella; Amy Colcher; Danna Jennings; Martha A Nance; Susan Bressman; William K Scott; Caroline Tanner; Susan F Mickel; Howard F Andrews; Cheryl H Waters; Stanley Fahn; Lucien J Cote; Steven J Frucht; Blair Ford; Michael Rezak; Kevin Novak; Joseph H Friedman; Ronald Pfeiffer; Laura Marsh; Bradley Hiner; Andrew Siderowf; Ruth Ottman; Lorraine N Clark; Karen S Marder; Elise Caccappolo
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2010-02-24       Impact factor: 2.475

4.  Depression and healthcare service utilization in patients with cancer.

Authors:  Brent T Mausbach; Scott A Irwin
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 3.894

Review 5.  How to assess the clinical impact of treatments on patients, rather than the statistical impact of treatments on measures.

Authors:  Helena Chmura Kraemer; Ellen Frank; David J Kupfer
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.035

6.  Validation of the UCSD Performance-based Skills Assessment (UPSA) in Hispanics with and without schizophrenia.

Authors:  Brent T Mausbach; Denisse Tiznado; Veronica Cardenas; Dilip V Jeste; Thomas L Patterson
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 3.222

7.  Peripheral proinflammatory markers are upregulated in abstinent alcohol-dependent patients but are not affected by cognitive bias modification: Preliminary findings.

Authors:  Jeanelle Portelli; Corinde E Wiers; Xiaobai Li; Sara L Deschaine; Gray R McDiarmid; Felix Bermpohl; Lorenzo Leggio
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 4.492

8.  A meta-analytic review of the Penn Resiliency Program's effect on depressive symptoms.

Authors:  Steven M Brunwasser; Jane E Gillham; Eric S Kim
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2009-12

9.  Using global statistical tests in long-term Parkinson's disease clinical trials.

Authors:  Peng Huang; Christopher G Goetz; Robert F Woolson; Barbara Tilley; Douglas Kerr; Yuko Palesch; Jordan Elm; Bernard Ravina; Kenneth J Bergmann; Karl Kieburtz
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 10.338

10.  Epidemiological methods: about time.

Authors:  Helena Chmura Kraemer
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.