Literature DB >> 23580422

Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of significance level for several methods of analysis.

Patrick Royston1, Willi Sauerbrei.   

Abstract

Interactions between treatments and covariates in RCTs are a key topic. Standard methods for modelling treatment-covariate interactions with continuous covariates are categorisation or linear functions. Both approaches are easily criticised, but for different reasons. Multivariable fractional polynomial interactions, an approach based on fractional polynomials with the linear interaction model as the simplest special case, was proposed. Four variants of multivariable fractional polynomial interaction (FLEX1-FLEX4), allowing varying flexibility in functional form, were suggested. However, their properties are unknown, and comparisons with other procedures are unavailable. Additionally, we consider various methods based on categorisation and on cubic regression splines. We present the results of a simulation study to determine the significance level (probability of a type 1 error) of various tests for interaction between a binary covariate ('treatment effect') and a continuous covariate in univariate analysis. We consider a simplified setting in which the response variable is conditionally normally distributed, given the continuous covariate. We consider two main cases with the covariate distribution well behaved (approximately symmetric) or badly behaved (positively skewed). We construct nine scenarios with different functional forms for the main effect. In the well-behaved case, significance levels are in general acceptably close to nominal and are slightly better for the larger sample size (n = 250 and 500 were investigated). In the badly behaved case, departures from nominal are more pronounced for several approaches. For a final assessment of these results and recommendations for practice, a study of power is needed.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  interaction; regression model; significance level; simulation study

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23580422     DOI: 10.1002/sim.5813

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


  11 in total

1.  Evaluating Flexible Modeling of Continuous Covariates in Inverse-Weighted Estimators.

Authors:  Ryan P Kyle; Erica E M Moodie; Marina B Klein; Michał Abrahamowicz
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Stefan Schandelmaier; Matthias Briel; Ravi Varadhan; Christopher H Schmid; Niveditha Devasenapathy; Rodney A Hayward; Joel Gagnier; Michael Borenstein; Geert J M G van der Heijden; Issa J Dahabreh; Xin Sun; Willi Sauerbrei; Michael Walsh; John P A Ioannidis; Lehana Thabane; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-08-10       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Treatment According to Baseline Prediabetes Status: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Adam P Bress; Jordan B King; Kathryn E Kreider; Srinivasan Beddhu; Debra L Simmons; Alfred K Cheung; Yingying Zhang; Michael Doumas; John Nord; Mary Ellen Sweeney; Addison A Taylor; Charles Herring; William J Kostis; James Powell; Anjay Rastogi; Christianne L Roumie; Alan Wiggers; Jonathan S Williams; Reem Yunis; Athena Zias; Greg W Evans; Tom Greene; Michael V Rocco; William C Cushman; David M Reboussin; Mark N Feinglos; Vasilios Papademetriou
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 19.112

4.  Investigating treatment-effect modification by a continuous covariate in IPD meta-analysis: an approach using fractional polynomials.

Authors:  Willi Sauerbrei; Patrick Royston
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Performance Evaluation of Parametric and Nonparametric Methods When Assessing Effect Measure Modification.

Authors:  Gabriel Conzuelo Rodriguez; Lisa M Bodnar; Maria M Brooks; Abdus Wahed; Edward H Kennedy; Enrique Schisterman; Ashley I Naimi
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 5.363

6.  A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Gary S Collins; Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen; Maryam Nazemipour; Nicholas P Jewell; Douglas G Altman; Michael J Campbell
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 18.473

Review 7.  Subgroup analyses in confirmatory clinical trials: time to be specific about their purposes.

Authors:  Julien Tanniou; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Steven Teerenstra; Kit C B Roes
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Multivariable fractional polynomial interaction to investigate continuous effect modifiers in a meta-analysis on higher versus lower PEEP for patients with ARDS.

Authors:  Benjamin Kasenda; Willi Sauerbrei; Patrick Royston; Alain Mercat; Arthur S Slutsky; Deborah Cook; Gordon H Guyatt; Laurent Brochard; Jean-Christophe M Richard; Thomas E Stewart; Maureen Meade; Matthias Briel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Development and Validation of a Nomogram to Predict the Benefit of Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Patients with Resected Gastric Cancer.

Authors:  Shu-Qiang Yuan; Wen-Jing Wu; Miao-Zhen Qiu; Zi-Xian Wang; Lu-Ping Yang; Ying Jin; Jing-Ping Yun; Yuan-Hong Gao; Yu-Hong Li; Zhi-Wei Zhou; Feng Wang; Rui-Hua Xu
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 4.207

10.  Effectiveness of blood pressure-lowering treatment by the levels of baseline Framingham risk score: A post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Authors:  Ling Zhang; Xiuting Sun; Lizhen Liao; Shaozhao Zhang; Huimin Zhou; Xiangbin Zhong; Xiaodong Zhuang; Xinxue Liao
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.738

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.