Search

In low-dimensional data and within the framework of a classical linear regression model, we intend to compare variable selection methods and investigate the role of shrinkage of regression estimates in a simulation study. Our primary aim is to build descriptive models that capture the data structure parsimoniously, while our secondary aim is to derive a prediction model. Simulation studies are an important tool in statistical methodology research if they are well designed, executed, and reported. However, bias in favor of an "own" preferred method is prevalent in most simulation studies in which a new method is proposed and compared with existing methods. To overcome such bias, neutral comparison studies, which disregard the superiority or inferiority of a particular method, have been proposed. In this paper, we designed a simulation study with key principles of neutral comparison studies in mind, though certain unintentional biases cannot be ruled out. To improve the design and reporting of a simulation study, we followed the recently proposed ADEMP structure, which entails defining the aims (A), data-generating mechanisms (D), estimand/target of analysis (E), methods (M), and performance measures (P). To ensure the reproducibility of results, we published the protocol before conducting the study. In addition, we presented earlier versions of the design to several experts whose feedback influenced certain aspects of the design. We will compare popular penalized regression methods (lasso, adaptive lasso, relaxed lasso, and nonnegative garrote) that combine variable selection and shrinkage with classical variable selection methods (best subset selection and backward elimination) with and without post-estimation shrinkage of parameter estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although regression models play a central role in the analysis of medical research projects, there still exist many misconceptions on various aspects of modeling leading to faulty analyses. Indeed, the rapidly developing statistical methodology and its recent advances in regression modeling do not seem to be adequately reflected in many medical publications. This problem of knowledge transfer from statistical research to application was identified by some medical journals, which have published series of statistical tutorials and (shorter) papers mainly addressing medical researchers. The aim of this review was to assess the current level of knowledge with regard to regression modeling contained in such statistical papers. We searched for target series by a request to international statistical experts. We identified 23 series including 57 topic-relevant articles. Within each article, two independent raters analyzed the content by investigating 44 predefined aspects on regression modeling. We assessed to what extent the aspects were explained and if examples, software advices, and recommendations for or against specific methods were given. Most series (21/23) included at least one article on multivariable regression. Logistic regression was the most frequently described regression type (19/23), followed by linear regression (18/23), Cox regression and survival models (12/23) and Poisson regression (3/23). Most general aspects on regression modeling, e.g. model assumptions, reporting and interpretation of regression results, were covered. We did not find many misconceptions or misleading recommendations, but we identified relevant gaps, in particular with respect to addressing nonlinear effects of continuous predictors, model specification and variable selection. Specific recommendations on software were rarely given. Statistical guidance should be developed for nonlinear effects, model specification and variable selection to better support medical researchers who perform or interpret regression analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. It was developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. In this paper we expand on the REMARK checklist to enhance its use and effectiveness through better understanding of the intent of each item and why the information is important to report. Methods REMARK recommends including a transparent and full description of research goals and hypotheses, subject selection, specimen and assay considerations, marker measurement methods, statistical design and analysis, and study results. Each checklist item is explained and accompanied by published examples of good reporting, and relevant empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. We give prominence to discussion of the 'REMARK profile', a suggested tabular format for summarizing key study details. Summary The paper provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. To encourage dissemination of the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration, this article has also been published in PLoS Medicine.

Abstract Background Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of a subsequent outcome in people with a given disease or health condition. Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD), where the raw data are synthesised from multiple studies, has been championed as the gold-standard for synthesising prognostic factor studies. We assessed the feasibility and conduct of this approach. Methods A systematic review to identify published IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors studies, followed by detailed assessment of a random sample of 20 articles published from 2006. Six of these 20 articles were from the IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in traumatic brain injury) collaboration, for which additional information was also used from simultaneously published companion papers. Results Forty-eight published IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors were identified up to March 2009. Only three were published before 2000 but thereafter a median of four articles exist per year, with traumatic brain injury the most active research field. Availability of IPD offered many advantages, such as checking modelling assumptions; analysing variables on their continuous scale with the possibility of assessing for non-linear relationships; and obtaining results adjusted for other variables. However, researchers also faced many challenges, such as large cost and time required to obtain and clean IPD; unavailable IPD for some studies; different sets of prognostic factors in each study; and variability in study methods of measurement. The IMPACT initiative is a leading example, and had generally strong design, methodological and statistical standards. Elsewhere, standards are not always as high and improvements in the conduct of IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factor studies are often needed; in particular, continuous variables are often categorised without reason; publication bias and availability bias are rarely examined; and important methodological details and summary results are often inadequately reported. Conclusions IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors are achievable and offer many advantages, as displayed most expertly by the IMPACT initiative. However such projects face numerous logistical and methodological obstacles, and their conduct and reporting can often be substantially improved.

Doug Altman was a visionary leader and one of the most influential medical statisticians of the last 40 years. Based on a presentation in the "Invited session in memory of Doug Altman" at the 40th Annual Conference of the International Society for Clinical Biostatistics (ISCB) in Leuven, Belgium and our long‐standing collaborations with Doug, we discuss his contributions to regression modeling, reporting, prognosis research, as well as some more general issues while acknowledging that we cannot cover the whole spectrum of Doug's considerable methodological output. His statement "To maximize the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" should be a driver for all researchers. To improve current and future research, we aim to summarize Doug's messages for these three topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last decades, statistical methodology has developed rapidly, in particular in the field of regression modeling. Multivariable regression models are applied in almost all medical research projects. Therefore, the potential impact of statistical misconceptions within this field can be enormous Indeed, the current theoretical statistical knowledge is not always adequately transferred to the current practice in medical statistics. Some medical journals have identified this problem and published isolated statistical articles and even whole series thereof. In this systematic review, we aim to assess the current level of education on regression modeling that is provided to medical researchers via series of statistical articles published in medical journals. The present manuscript is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to assess which aspects of regression modeling are covered by statistical series published in medical journals that intend to train and guide applied medical researchers with limited statistical knowledge. Statistical paper series cannot easily be summarized and identified by common keywords in an electronic search engine like Scopus. We therefore identified series by a systematic request to statistical experts who are part or related to the STRATOS Initiative (STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies). Within each identified article, two raters will independently check the content of the articles with respect to a predefined list of key aspects related to regression modeling. The content analysis of the topic-relevant articles will be performed using a predefined report form to assess the content as objectively as possible. Any disputes will be resolved by a third reviewer. Summary analyses will identify potential methodological gaps and misconceptions that may have an important impact on the quality of analyses in medical research. This review will thus provide a basis for future guidance papers and tutorials in the field of regression modeling which will enable medical researchers 1) to interpret publications in a correct way, 2) to perform basic statistical analyses in a correct way and 3) to identify situations when the help of a statistical expert is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]