Search

Most studies aiming to construct reference or standard charts use a cross-sectional design, collecting one measurement per participant. Reference or standard charts can also be constructed using a longitudinal design, collecting multiple measurements per participant. The choice of appropriate statistical methodology is important as inaccurate centiles resulting from inferior methods can lead to incorrect judgements about fetal or newborn size, resulting in suboptimal clinical care. Reference or standard centiles should ideally provide the best fit to the data, change smoothly with age (eg, gestational age), use as simple a statistical model as possible without compromising model fit, and allow the computation of Z-scores from centiles to simplify assessment of individuals and enable comparison with different populations. Significance testing and goodness-of-fit statistics are usually used to discriminate between models. However, these methods tend not to be useful when examining large data sets as very small differences are statistically significant even if the models are indistinguishable on actual centile plots. Choosing the best model from amongst many is therefore not trivial. Model choice should not be based on statistical considerations (or tests) alone as sometimes the best model may not necessarily offer the best fit to the raw data across gestational age. In this paper, we describe the most commonly applied methodologies available for the construction of age-specific reference or standard centiles for cross-sectional and longitudinal data: Fractional polynomial regression, LMS, LMST, LMSP, and multilevel regression methods. For illustration, we used data from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, ie, newborn weight (cross-sectional) and fetal head circumference (longitudinal) data as examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the features of study design and methodological considerations for constructing reference centile charts for attained size, growth, and velocity charts with a focus on human growth charts used during pregnancy. Recent systematic reviews of pregnancy dating, fetal size, and newborn size charts showed that many studies aimed at constructing charts are still conducted poorly. Important design features such as inclusion and exclusion criteria, ultrasound quality control measures, sample size determination, anthropometric evaluation, gestational age estimation, assessment of outliers, and chart presentation are seldom well addressed, considered, or reported. Many of these charts are in clinical use today and directly affect the identification of at-risk newborns that require treatment and nutritional strategies. This paper therefore reiterates some of the concepts previously identified as important for growth studies, focusing on considerations and concepts related to study design, sample size, and methodological considerations with an aim of obtaining valid reference or standard centile charts. We discuss some of the key issues and provide more details and practical examples based on our experiences from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. We discuss the statistical methodology and analyses for cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies in a separate article in this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After developing a prognostic model, it is essential to evaluate the performance of the model in samples independent from those used to develop the model, which is often referred to as external validation. However, despite its importance, very little is known about the sample size requirements for conducting an external validation. Using a large real data set and resampling methods, we investigate the impact of sample size on the performance of six published prognostic models. Focussing on unbiased and precise estimation of performance measures (e.g. the c-index, D statistic and calibration), we provide guidance on sample size for investigators designing an external validation study. Our study suggests that externally validating a prognostic model requires a minimum of 100 events and ideally 200 (or more) events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The validity and practical utility of observational medical research depends critically on good study design, excellent data quality, appropriate statistical methods and accurate interpretation of results. Statistical methodology has seen substantial development in recent times. Unfortunately, many of these methodological developments are ignored in practice. Consequently, design and analysis of observational studies often exhibit serious weaknesses. The lack of guidance on vital practical issues discourages many applied researchers from using more sophisticated and possibly more appropriate methods when analyzing observational studies. Furthermore, many analyses are conducted by researchers with a relatively weak statistical background and limited experience in using statistical methodology and software. Consequently, even 'standard' analyses reported in the medical literature are often flawed, casting doubt on their results and conclusions. An efficient way to help researchers to keep up with recent methodological developments is to develop guidance documents that are spread to the research community at large. These observations led to the initiation of the strengthening analytical thinking for observational studies (STRATOS) initiative, a large collaboration of experts in many different areas of biostatistical research. The objective of STRATOS is to provide accessible and accurate guidance in the design and analysis of observational studies. The guidance is intended for applied statisticians and other data analysts with varying levels of statistical education, experience and interests. In this article, we introduce the STRATOS initiative and its main aims, present the need for guidance documents and outline the planned approach and progress so far. We encourage other biostatisticians to become involved. © 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In medical research, continuous variables are often converted into categorical variables by grouping values into two or more categories. We consider in detail issues pertaining to creating just two groups, a common approach in clinical research. We argue that the simplicity achieved is gained at a cost; dichotomization may create rather than avoid problems, notably a considerable loss of power and residual confounding. In addition, the use of a data-derived 'optimal' cutpoint leads to serious bias. We illustrate the impact of dichotomization of continuous predictor variables using as a detailed case study a randomized trial in primary biliary cirrhosis. Dichotomization of continuous data is unnecessary for statistical analysis and in particular should not be applied to explanatory variables in regression models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent Statistics in Medicine paper, Warn, Thompson and Spiegelhalter (WTS) made a comparison between the Bayesian approach to the meta-analysis of binary outcomes and a popular Classical approach that uses summary (two-stage) techniques. They included approximate summary (two-stage) Bayesian techniques in their comparisons in an attempt undoubtedly to make the comparison less unfair. But, as this letter will argue, there are techniques from the Classical approach that are closer-those based directly on the likelihood-and they failed to make comparisons with these. Here the differences between Bayesian and Classical approaches in meta-analysis applications reside solely in how the likelihood functions are converted into either credibility intervals or confidence intervals. Both summarize, contrast and combine data using likelihood functions. Conflating what Bayes actually offers to meta-analysts-a means of converting likelihood functions to credibility intervals-with the use of likelihood functions themselves to summarize, contrast and combine studies is at best misleading. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most studies aiming to construct reference or standard charts use a cross-sectional design, collecting one measurement per participant. Reference or standard charts can also be constructed using a longitudinal design, collecting multiple measurements per participant. The choice of appropriate statistical methodology is important as inaccurate centiles resulting from inferior methods can lead to incorrect judgements about fetal or newborn size, resulting in suboptimal clinical care. Reference or standard centiles should ideally provide the best fit to the data, change smoothly with age (eg, gestational age), use as simple a statistical model as possible without compromising model fit, and allow the computation of Z-scores from centiles to simplify assessment of individuals and enable comparison with different populations. Significance testing and goodness-of-fit statistics are usually used to discriminate between models. However, these methods tend not to be useful when examining large data sets as very small differences are statistically significant even if the models are indistinguishable on actual centile plots. Choosing the best model from amongst many is therefore not trivial. Model choice should not be based on statistical considerations (or tests) alone as sometimes the best model may not necessarily offer the best fit to the raw data across gestational age. In this paper, we describe the most commonly applied methodologies available for the construction of age-specific reference or standard centiles for cross-sectional and longitudinal data: Fractional polynomial regression, LMS, LMST, LMSP, and multilevel regression methods. For illustration, we used data from the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project, ie, newborn weight (cross-sectional) and fetal head circumference (longitudinal) data as examples., (© 2018 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)