Literature DB >> 29298639

Bias away from the null due to miscounted outcomes? A case study on the TORCH trial.

Stefanie Muff1,2, Milo A Puhan1, Leonhard Held1.   

Abstract

Count outcomes occur in virtually all disciplines, such as medicine, epidemiology or biology, but they often contain error. Recently, it has been shown that self-reported numbers of exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients can be considerably miscounted. Motivated by this result, we reanalysed data from the Towards a Revolution in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Health trial, a large randomized controlled trial with the self-reported number of exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients as outcome. To adjust for miscounting error in the response of Poisson and (zero-inflated) negative binomial models, we introduce novel, general methodology. The key idea is to formulate a zero-inflated negative binomial model to capture the error mechanism. This parametric approach automatically circumvents drawbacks of previously suggested methodology that treats miscounted outcomes in the misclassification framework. Prior information for the response error model parameters was elicited from validation data of an external study and adaptively weighted to account for potential prior-data conflict. The results of the Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach indicated that the treatment effect has been overestimated in the original study. However, closer inspection revealed that this unexpected result was an artefact of an unaccounted time dependency of the treatment effect.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian analysis; Miscounting error; count outcome; prior weighting; randomized clinical trial; response error; zero-inflated negative binomial regression

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29298639     DOI: 10.1177/0962280217694403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  2 in total

1.  Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency-a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports.

Authors:  Maximilian Siebert; Jeanne Gaba; Alain Renault; Bruno Laviolle; Clara Locher; David Moher; Florian Naudet
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 11.150

Review 2.  Prior Elicitation for Use in Clinical Trial Design and Analysis: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Danila Azzolina; Paola Berchialla; Dario Gregori; Ileana Baldi
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-02-13       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.