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]

In 2005, several experts in tumor biomarker research publishe the REporting recommendations for Tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) criteria. Coupled with the subsequent Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality (BRISQ) criteria, these initiatives provide a framework for transparently reporting of the methods of study conduct and analyses. [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]

Data integration, i.e. the use of different sources of information for data analysis, is becoming one of the most important topics in modern statistics. Especially in, but not limited to, biomedical applications, a relevant issue is the combination of low-dimensional (e.g. clinical data) and high-dimensional (e.g. molecular data such as gene expressions) data sources in a prediction model. Not only the different characteristics of the data, but also the complex correlation structure within and between the two data sources, pose challenging issues. In this paper, we investigate these issues via simulations, providing some useful insight into strategies to combine low- and high-dimensional data in a regression prediction model. In particular, we focus on the effect of the correlation structure on the results, while accounting for the influence of our specific choices in the design of the simulation study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs examine effect modification (also called a subgroup effect or interaction), in which the effect of an intervention varies by another variable (e.g., age or disease severity). Assessing the credibility of an apparent effect modification presents challenges; therefore, we developed the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN).Methods: To develop ICEMAN, we established a detailed concept; identified candidate credibility considerations in a systematic survey of the literature; together with experts, performed a consensus study to identify key considerations and develop them into instrument items; and refined the instrument based on feedback from trial investigators, systematic review authors and journal editors, who applied drafts of ICEMAN to published claims of effect modification.Results: The final instrument consists of a set of preliminary considerations, core questions (5 for RCTs, 8 for meta-analyses) with 4 response options, 1 optional item for additional considerations and a rating of credibility on a visual analogue scale ranging from very low to high. An accompanying manual provides rationales, detailed instructions and examples from the literature. Seventeen potential users tested ICEMAN; their suggestions improved the user-friendliness of the instrument.Interpretation: The Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses offers explicit guidance for investigators, systematic reviewers, journal editors and others considering making a claim of effect modification or interpreting a claim made by others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The purpose of this paper is to provide more complete explanations of each of the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) checklist items and to provide specific [...]

Non-linear exposure-outcome relationships such as between body mass index (BMI) and mortality are common. They are best explored as continuous functions using individual participant data from multiple studies. We explore two two-stage methods for meta-analysis of such relationships, where the confounder-adjusted relationship is first estimated in a non-linear regression model in each study, then combined across studies. The "metacurve" approach combines the estimated curves using multiple meta-analyses of the relative effect between a given exposure level and a reference level. The "mvmeta" approach combines the estimated model parameters in a single multivariate meta-analysis. Both methods allow the exposure-outcome relationship to differ across studies. Using theoretical arguments, we show that the methods differ most when covariate distributions differ across studies; using simulated data, we show that mvmeta gains precision but metacurve is more robust to model mis-specification. We then compare the two methods using data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration on BMI, coronary heart disease events, and all-cause mortality (>80 cohorts, >18 000 events). For each outcome, we model BMI using fractional polynomials of degree 2 in each study, with adjustment for confounders. For metacurve, the powers defining the fractional polynomials may be study-specific or common across studies. For coronary heart disease, metacurve with common powers and mvmeta correctly identify a small increase in risk in the lowest levels of BMI, but metacurve with study-specific powers does not. For all-cause mortality, all methods identify a steep U-shape. The metacurve and mvmeta methods perform well in combining complex exposure-disease relationships across studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radiotherapy after breast conservation has become the standard of care. Prior meta-analyses on effects of radiotherapy predated availability of gene expression profiling (GEP) to assess recurrence risk and/or did not include all relevant outcomes. This analysis used GEP information with pooled individual-level data to evaluate the impact of omitting radiotherapy on recurrence and mortality.Methods: We considered trials that evaluated or administered radiotherapy after lumpectomy in women with low-risk breast cancer. Women included had undergone lumpectomy and were treated with hormonal therapy for stage I, ER+ and/or PR+, HER2- breast cancer with Oncotype scores no greater than 18. Recurrence-free interval (RFI), type of RFI (locoregional or distant), and breast cancer-specific and overall survival were compared between no radiotherapy and radiotherapy using adjusted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: The final sample included 1778 women from seven trials. Omission of radiotherapy was associated with an overall adjusted hazard ratio of 2.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38 to 4.89, P = .003) for RFI. There was a statistically significant increase in any first locoregional recurrence (P = .001), but not distant recurrence events (P = .90), or breast cancer-specific (P = .85) or overall survival (P = .61). Five-year RFI rate was high (93.5% for no radiotherapy vs 97.9% for radiotherapy; absolute reduction = 4.4%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 8.1%, P = .03). The effects of radiotherapy varied across subgroups, with lower RFI rates for those with Oncotype scores of less than 11 (vs 11-18), older (vs younger), and ER+/PR+ status (vs other).Conclusions: Omission of radiotherapy in hormone-sensitive patients with low recurrence risk may lead to a modest increase in locoregional recurrence event rates, but does not appear to increase the rate of distant recurrence or death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) were developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. The REMARK checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. A detailed paper was published explaining the rationale behind checklist items, providing positive examples and giving empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. REMARK 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. Despite support for REMARK from major cancer journals, prognostic factor research studies remain poorly reported. To encourage dissemination and uptake of REMARK, we have produced this considerably abridged version of the detailed explanatory manuscript, which may also serve as a brief guide to key issues for investigators planning tumor marker prognostic studies. To summarize the current situation, more recent papers investigating the quality of reporting and related reporting guidelines are cited, but otherwise the literature is not updated. Another important impetus for this paper is that it serves as a basis for literal translations into other languages. Translations will help to bring key information to a larger audience world-wide. Many more details can be found in the original paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If a number of candidate variables are available, variable selection is a key task aiming to identify those candidates which influence the outcome of interest. Methods as backward elimination, forward selection, etc. are often implemented, despite their drawbacks. One of these drawbacks is the instability of their results with respect to small perturbations in the data. To handle this issue, resampling-based procedures have been introduced; using a resampling technique, e.g. bootstrap, these procedures generate several pseudo-samples that are used to compute the inclusion frequency of each variable, i.e. the proportion of pseudo-samples in which the variable is selected. Based on the inclusion frequencies, it is possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant variables. These procedures may fail in case of correlated variables. To deal with this issue, two procedures based on 2×2 tables of inclusion frequencies have been developed in the literature. In this paper we analyse the behaviours of these two procedures and the role of their tuning parameters in an extensive simulation study. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article provides an overview of the STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies (STRATOS) initiative as an international collaboration which was formed to offer guidance to help bridge the gap between methodological application and innovation. STRATOS is focused on distinguishing issues and promising approaches for analysing and planning observational studies.