Search

In a stratified analysis, the results from different strata if homogeneity assumption is met are pooled together to obtain a single summary estimate for the common effect parameter. However, the effect can appear homogeneous across strata using one measure but heterogeneous using another. Consequently, two researchers analyzing the same data can arrive at conflicting conclusions if they use different effect measures. In this paper, the author draws on the sufficient component cause model to develop a stratified-analysis method regarding a particular effect measure, the ‘peril ratio’. When there is no mechanistic interaction between the exposure under study and the stratifying variable (i.e., when they do not work together to complete any sufficient cause), the peril ratio is constant across strata. The author presents formulas for the estimation of such a common peril ratio. Three real data are re-analyzed for illustration. When the data is consistent with peril-ratio homogeneity in a stratified analysis, researchers can use the formulas in this paper to pool the strata. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a performance measure for a prediction model, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is insensitive to the addition of strong markers. A number of measures sensitive to performance change have recently been proposed; however, these relative-performance measures may lead to self-contradictory conclusions. This paper examines alternative performance measures for prediction models: the Lorenz curve-based Gini and Pietra indices, and a standardized version of the Brier score, the scaled Brier. Computer simulations are performed in order to study the sensitivity of these measures to performance change when a new marker is added to a baseline model. When the discrimination power of the added marker is concentrated in the gray zone of the baseline model, the AUC and the Gini show minimal performance improvements. The Pietra and the scaled Brier show more significant improvements in the same situation, comparatively. The Pietra and the scaled Brier indices are therefore recommended for prediction model performance measurement, in light of their ease of interpretation, clinical relevance and sensitivity to gray-zone resolving markers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute alcohol-related dysfunctional behaviours, such as hangover, are predictive of poor health and mortality. Although much is known about the association of education with alcohol consumption, little is known about its association with these dysfunctional behaviours. Methods: The study population was 1,705 male drinkers aged 25–54 years resident in the city of Izhevsk, Russia who participated in a cross-sectional survey (2003–6). Structural equation modelling was used to examine the relationships between education, beverage and non-beverage alcohol intake, drinking patterns, and acute alcohol-related dysfunction score among these drinkers. Results: Dysfunction was related to all other drinking variables, with the strongest predictors being spirit intake, non-beverage alcohol consumption and drinking patterns. There was a strong relationship between education and acute dysfunction which was not explained by adjusting for alcohol intake and drinking patterns (mean adjusted dysfunction score 0.35 SD (95% CI 0.10, 0.61) lower in men with higher versus secondary education). Conclusions: Although by definition one or more aspects of alcohol consumption should explain the educational differences in alcohol-related dysfunction, detailed information on drinking only partly accounted for the observed patterns. Thus beyond their intrinsic interest, these results illustrate the challenges in constructing statistical models that convincingly identify the pathways that link educational differences to health-related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results. Methods and Findings: For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range −1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease. Conclusions: When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]