Literature DB >> 31116468

Issues in the determination of 'responders' and 'non-responders' in physiological research.

Greg Atkinson1, Philip Williamson2, Alan M Batterham1.   

Abstract

NEW
FINDINGS: What is the topic for this review? We discuss the dichotomization of continuous-level physiological measurements into 'responders' and 'non-responders' when interventions/treatments are examined in robust parallel-group studies. What advances does it highlight? Sample responder counts are biased by pre-to-post within-subject variability. Sample differences in counts may be explained wholly by differences in mean response, even without individual response heterogeneity and even if test-retest measurement error informs the choice of response threshold. A less biased and more informative approach uses the SD of individual responses to estimate the chance a new person from the population of interest will be a responder. ABSTRACT: As a follow-up to our 2015 review, we cover more issues on the topic of 'response heterogeneity', which we define as clinically important individual differences in the physiological responses to the same treatment/intervention that cannot be attributed to random within-subject variability. We highlight various pitfalls with the common practice of counting the number of 'responders', 'non-responders' and 'adverse responders' in samples that have been given certain treatments or interventions for research purposes. We focus on the classical parallel-group randomized controlled trial and assume typical good practice in trial design. We show that sample responder counts are biased because individuals differ in terms of pre-to-post within-subject random variability in the study outcome(s) and not necessarily treatment response. Ironically, sample differences in responder counts may be explained wholly by sample differences in mean response, even if there is no response heterogeneity at all. Sample comparisons of responder counts also have relatively low statistical precision. These problems do not depend on how the response threshold has been selected, e.g. on the basis of a measurement error statistic, and are not rectified fully by the use of confidence intervals for individual responses in the sample. The dichotomization of individual responses in a research sample is fraught with pitfalls. Less biased approaches for estimating the proportion of responders in a population of interest are now available. Importantly, these approaches are based on the SD for true individual responses, directly incorporating information from the control group.
© 2019 The Authors. Experimental Physiology © 2019 The Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  inter-individual differences; responders; response heterogeneity; standard deviation; within-subject random variability

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31116468     DOI: 10.1113/EP087712

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Physiol        ISSN: 0958-0670            Impact factor:   2.969


  17 in total

1.  A Method to Stop Analyzing Random Error and Start Analyzing Differential Responders to Exercise.

Authors:  Scott J Dankel; Jeremy P Loenneke
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 2.  The road ahead for health and lifespan interventions.

Authors:  Marta Gonzalez-Freire; Alberto Diaz-Ruiz; David Hauser; Jorge Martinez-Romero; Luigi Ferrucci; Michel Bernier; Rafael de Cabo
Journal:  Ageing Res Rev       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 10.895

3.  Monitoring training and recovery responses with heart rate measures during standardized warm-up in elite badminton players.

Authors:  Christoph Schneider; Thimo Wiewelhove; Shaun J McLaren; Lucas Röleke; Hannes Käsbauer; Anne Hecksteden; Michael Kellmann; Mark Pfeiffer; Alexander Ferrauti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Menstrual cycle affects iron homeostasis and hepcidin following interval running exercise in endurance-trained women.

Authors:  Víctor M Alfaro-Magallanes; Laura Barba-Moreno; Nuria Romero-Parra; Beatriz Rael; Pedro J Benito; Dorine W Swinkels; Coby M Laarakkers; Ángel E Díaz; Ana B Peinado
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 3.346

5.  Exploring Differences in Cardiorespiratory Fitness Response Rates Across Varying Doses of Exercise Training: A Retrospective Analysis of Eight Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Jacob T Bonafiglia; Nicholas Preobrazenski; Hashim Islam; Jeremy J Walsh; Robert Ross; Neil M Johannsen; Corby K Martin; Timothy S Church; Cris A Slentz; Leanna M Ross; William E Kraus; Glen P Kenny; Gary S Goldfield; Denis Prud'homme; Ronald J Sigal; Conrad P Earnest; Brendon J Gurd
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 11.136

6.  The National ReferAll Database: An Open Dataset of Exercise Referral Schemes Across the UK.

Authors:  James Steele; Matthew Wade; Robert J Copeland; Stuart Stokes; Rachel Stokes; Steven Mann
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Assessment of Peak Oxygen Uptake with a Smartwatch and its Usefulness for Training of Runners.

Authors:  Peter Düking; Bas Van Hooren; Billy Sperlich
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2022-01-30       Impact factor: 2.997

Review 8.  Troubleshooting a Nonresponder: Guidance for the Strength and Conditioning Coach.

Authors:  Benjamin H Gleason; William G Hornsby; Dylan G Suarez; Matthew A Nein; Michael H Stone
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-05

9.  Fyn knockdown prevents levodopa-induced dyskinesia in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Melina P Bordone; Ana Damianich; M Alejandra Bernardi; Tomas Eidelman; Sara Sanz-Blasco; Oscar S Gershanik; M Elena Avale; Juan E Ferrario
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2021-06-07

10.  A low caffeine dose improves maximal strength, but not relative muscular endurance in either heavier-or lighter-loads, or perceptions of effort or discomfort at task failure in females.

Authors:  Georgina Waller; Melissa Dolby; James Steele; James P Fisher
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.