Literature DB >> 24989698

Estimating dichotomised outcomes in two groups with unequal variances: a distributional approach.

O Sauzet1, J L Peacock.   

Abstract

Dichotomisation in medical research is sometimes necessary for decision-making or communication purposes. This practice has been criticised in the case of continuous data, and it has been said that means should be compared instead. However when the two groups have unequal variances, comparing means might not show the whole picture as a particular group with a risk defined by a threshold in an outcome may have been affected differently by an intervention than when there is a simple shift of distribution. A statistically sound method using a distributional approach for the dichotomisation of normally distributed outcomes has been described under the assumption of equal variances. This assumption is not sustainable in some situations, and in this work, we develop the method further to cover the case of unequal variances. Through examples from the literature and our own data, we illustrate the effect of unequal variance on dichotomised estimates and present a validation of the method through simulations.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  confidence intervals; dichotomisation; distributional method; normally distributed outcomes; unequal variances

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24989698     DOI: 10.1002/sim.6255

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


  6 in total

1.  Dichotomisation using a distributional approach when the outcome is skewed.

Authors:  Odile Sauzet; Mercy Ofuya; Janet L Peacock
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 4.615

2.  A distributional approach to obtain adjusted comparisons of proportions of a population at risk.

Authors:  Odile Sauzet; Jürgen Breckenkamp; Theda Borde; Silke Brenne; Matthias David; Oliver Razum; Janet L Peacock
Journal:  Emerg Themes Epidemiol       Date:  2016-06-07

3.  Using marginal standardisation to estimate relative risk without dichotomising continuous outcomes.

Authors:  Ying Chen; Yilin Ning; Shih Ling Kao; Nathalie C Støer; Falk Müller-Riemenschneider; Kavita Venkataraman; Eric Yin Hao Khoo; E-Shyong Tai; Chuen Seng Tan
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 4.  Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Janet L Peacock; Jessica Lo; Judith R Rees; Odile Sauzet
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Binomial outcomes in dataset with some clusters of size two: can the dependence of twins be accounted for? A simulation study comparing the reliability of statistical methods based on a dataset of preterm infants.

Authors:  Odile Sauzet; Janet L Peacock
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach.

Authors:  Anca Chis Ster; Rachel Phillips; Odile Sauzet; Victoria Cornelius
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.