BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Developing improved methods for analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) remains a critical issue for the stroke research community. A recently proposed permutation-based approach is assumption-free and easily interpretable but computationally intensive and does not provide confidence intervals to quantify the precision of the effect size estimate. We aimed to develop a method to overcome these limitations. METHODS: We propose a procedure using generalized odds ratios to estimate the odds that a patient who received the investigational treatment will have a better outcome than a patient receiving standard treatment. This approach was validated against the permutation method using hypothetical clinical trial scenarios of neuroprotective effect, early recanalization effect, late recanalization effect, and random benefit. RESULTS: The generalized odds ratio approach had strong agreement with the permutation approach provided sample size was >15 patients per treatment arm. Simulation established that the confidence intervals generated were accurate. Ignoring patient pairs with tied mRS scores overestimates the treatment effect compared with splitting tied mRS scores. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to all the advantages of the recently proposed permutation-based approach, our method generates confidence intervals without the need for intensive computational power. The resulting generalized odds ratios are particularly suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses and have a simple and intuitive connection with the number-needed-to-treat measure.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Developing improved methods for analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) remains a critical issue for the stroke research community. A recently proposed permutation-based approach is assumption-free and easily interpretable but computationally intensive and does not provide confidence intervals to quantify the precision of the effect size estimate. We aimed to develop a method to overcome these limitations. METHODS: We propose a procedure using generalized odds ratios to estimate the odds that a patient who received the investigational treatment will have a better outcome than a patient receiving standard treatment. This approach was validated against the permutation method using hypothetical clinical trial scenarios of neuroprotective effect, early recanalization effect, late recanalization effect, and random benefit. RESULTS: The generalized odds ratio approach had strong agreement with the permutation approach provided sample size was >15 patients per treatment arm. Simulation established that the confidence intervals generated were accurate. Ignoring patient pairs with tied mRS scores overestimates the treatment effect compared with splitting tied mRS scores. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to all the advantages of the recently proposed permutation-based approach, our method generates confidence intervals without the need for intensive computational power. The resulting generalized odds ratios are particularly suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses and have a simple and intuitive connection with the number-needed-to-treat measure.
Authors: Paulo Henrique Ferreira de Araujo Barbosa; Joanne V Glinsky; Emerson Fachin-Martins; Lisa A Harvey Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Maarten G Lansberg; Soren Christensen; Stephanie Kemp; Michael Mlynash; Nishant Mishra; Christian Federau; Jenny P Tsai; Sun Kim; Raul G Nogueria; Tudor Jovin; Thomas G Devlin; Naveed Akhtar; Dileep R Yavagal; Diogo Haussen; Seena Dehkharghani; Roland Bammer; Matus Straka; Greg Zaharchuk; Michael P Marks; Gregory W Albers Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Timothy J Kleinig; Richard J Dowling; Bernard Yan; Steven J Bush; Vincent Thijs; Rebecca Scroop; Marion Simpson; Mark Brooks; Hamed Asadi; Teddy Y Wu; Darshan G Shah; Tissa Wijeratne; Henry Zhao; Fana Alemseged; Felix Ng; Peter Bailey; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Helen M Dewey; Philip M C Choi; Helen Brown; Kendal Redmond; David Leggett; John N Fink; Wayne Collecutt; Thomas Kraemer; Martin Krause; Dennis Cordato; Deborah Field; Henry Ma; Bill O'Brien; Benjamin Clissold; Ferdinand Miteff; Anna Clissold; Geoffrey C Cloud; Leslie E Bolitho; Luke Bonavia; Arup Bhattacharya; Alistair Wright; Abul Mamun; Fintan O'Rourke; John Worthington; Andrew A Wong; Christopher R Levi; Christopher F Bladin; Gagan Sharma; Patricia M Desmond; Mark W Parsons; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sarah Sj Rewell; Amy L Jeffreys; Steven A Sastra; Susan F Cox; John A Fernandez; Elena Aleksoska; H Bart van der Worp; Leonid Churilov; Malcolm R Macleod; David W Howells Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Sarah S J Rewell; Leonid Churilov; T Kate Sidon; Elena Aleksoska; Susan F Cox; Malcolm R Macleod; David W Howells Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240