Literature DB >> 9598427

Power considerations when a continuous outcome variable is dichotomized.

B A Deyi1, A S Kosinski, S M Snapinn.   

Abstract

An investigator can compare two groups with respect to a continuous outcome variable, Y, by comparing the means of Y or by collapsing that variable into categories. For example, antihypertensive treatments can be compared on the basis of blood pressure measurements, or on the basis of the proportions of patients with blood pressure in prespecified ranges. This report is concerned with the loss of power when inherently continuous variables are dichotomized. The report will focus on the power loss when a normally distributed variable with a known, common variance in each of two groups is dichotomized. Power is shown to depend on the relationship between the means of the two groups and the cutoff point, and it varies from negligible to substantial. The results will be applied to data from the Lovastatin Restenosis Trial. Initially the trial considered a dichotomous outcome (proportion of patients with elevated percent diameter stenosis), but the endpoint was later changed to the mean percent diameter stenosis. The modification in the design of the trial was well justified because the power loss was considerable when comparing proportions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9598427     DOI: 10.1080/10543409808835243

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biopharm Stat        ISSN: 1054-3406            Impact factor:   1.051


  13 in total

1.  Comparison of Dichotomized and Distributional Approaches in Rare Event Clinical Trial Design: a Fixed Bayesian Design.

Authors:  Yang Lei; Susan Carlson; Lisa N Yelland; Maria Makrides; Robert Gibson; Byron J Gajewski
Journal:  J Appl Stat       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 1.404

Review 2.  Overcoming obstacles in the design of cancer anorexia/weight loss trials.

Authors:  Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Jeffrey Crawford; William J Evans; Aminah Jatoi
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 6.312

3.  Depression symptom dimensions as predictors of antidepressant treatment outcome: replicable evidence for interest-activity symptoms.

Authors:  R Uher; R H Perlis; N Henigsberg; A Zobel; M Rietschel; O Mors; J Hauser; M Z Dernovsek; D Souery; M Bajs; W Maier; K J Aitchison; A Farmer; P McGuffin
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 7.723

4.  Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery.

Authors:  A F Mannion; A Junge; D Grob; J Dvorak; J C T Fairbank
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-04-26       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Biomarkers predicting treatment outcome in depression: what is clinically significant?

Authors:  Rudolf Uher; Katherine E Tansey; Karim Malki; Roy H Perlis
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.533

6.  Longitudinal Analysis of Psychosocial Stressors and Body Mass Index in Middle-Aged and Older Adults in the United States.

Authors:  Adolfo G Cuevas; Siobhan Greatorex-Voith; Shervin Assari; Natalie Slopen; Christina D Economos
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 4.077

Review 7.  Toward empirical identification of a clinically meaningful indicator of treatment outcome: features of candidate indicators and evaluation of sensitivity to treatment effects and relationship to one year follow up cocaine use outcomes.

Authors:  Kathleen M Carroll; Brian D Kiluk; Charla Nich; Elise E DeVito; Suzanne Decker; Donna LaPaglia; Dianne Duffey; Theresa A Babuscio; Samuel A Ball
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 4.492

8.  Comparison of models for analyzing two-group, cross-sectional data with a Gaussian outcome subject to a detection limit.

Authors:  Ryan E Wiegand; Charles E Rose; John M Karon
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 3.021

9.  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

10.  Responder analyses and the assessment of a clinically relevant treatment effect.

Authors:  Steven M Snapinn; Qi Jiang
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.