Search

BackgroundThis study relates to emerging concepts of appropriate trial designs to evaluate effects of intervention on the accumulation of irreversible disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). Major starting points of our study are the known limitations of current definitions of disability progression by rater-based clinical assessment and the high relevance of gait and balance dysfunctions in MS. The study aims to explore a novel definition of disease progression using repeated instrumental assessment of relevant motor functions performed by patients in their home setting.MethodsThe study is a prospective single-center observational cohort study with the primary outcome acquired by participants themselves, a home-based assessment of motor functions based on an RGB-Depth (RGB-D) camera, a camera that provides both depth (D) and color (RGB) data. Participants are instructed to perform and record a set of simple motor tasks twice a day over a one-week period every 6 months. Assessments are complemented by a set of questionnaires. Annual research grade assessments are acquired at dedicated study visits and include clinical ratings as well as structural imaging (MRI and optical coherence tomography). In addition, clinical data from routine visits is provided semiannually by treating neurologists. The observation period is 24 months for the primary endpoint with an additional clinical assessment at 27 month to confirm progression defined by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Secondary analyses aim to explore the time course of changes in motor parameters and performance of the novel definition against different alternative definitions of progression in MS. The study was registered at Deutsches Register für Klinische Studien (DRKS00027042).DiscussionThe study design presented here investigates disease progression defined by marker-less home-based assessment of motor functions against 3-month confirmed disease progression (3 m-CDP) defined by the EDSS. The technical approach was chosen due to previous experience in lab-based settings. The observation time per participant of 24, respectively, 27 months is commonly conceived as the lower limit needed to study disability progression. Defining a valid digital motor outcome for disease progression in MS may help to reduce observation times in clinical trials and add confidence to the detection of progression events in MS.

ObjectiveEarly identification of health-related risk factors is of great importance for maintaining workability. Screening examinations can help to detect diseases at an early stage and provide more needs-based recommendations. This study aims (1) to assess the individual need for prevention or rehabilitation based on preventive health examinations compared to a questionnaire survey, (2) to assess the results of the preventive health examinations compared to the Risk Index – Disability Pension (RI-DP), (3) to assess the results of the questionnaire survey compared to the RI-DP, (4) to assess the general health status of the sample (target population > 1,000) in German employees aged 45–59, (5) to identify the most common medical conditions. A further study question aims, and (6) to investigate the general health status of the specific occupational groups.MethodsComprehensive diagnostics including medical examination, anamnesis, anthropometric measurements, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), handgrip strength, resting electrocardiogram (ECG), resting blood pressure, pulse wave velocity (PWV), and laboratory blood analyses added by a questionnaire are conducted. The research questions are analyzed in an exploratory manner.Results and conclusionWe expect that the results will allow us to formulate recommendations regarding screening for prevention and rehabilitation needs on a more evidence-based level.Clinical Trial Registration: DRKS ID: DRKS00030982.

Abstract Background Statistical model building requires selection of variables for a model depending on the model’s aim. In descriptive and explanatory models, a common recommendation often met in the literature is to include all variables in the model which are assumed or known to be associated with the outcome independent of their identification with data driven selection procedures. An open question is, how reliable this assumed “background knowledge” truly is. In fact, “known” predictors might be findings from preceding studies which may also have employed inappropriate model building strategies. Methods We conducted a simulation study assessing the influence of treating variables as “known predictors” in model building when in fact this knowledge resulting from preceding studies might be insufficient. Within randomly generated preceding study data sets, model building with variable selection was conducted. A variable was subsequently considered as a “known” predictor if a predefined number of preceding studies identified it as relevant. Results Even if several preceding studies identified a variable as a “true” predictor, this classification is often false positive. Moreover, variables not identified might still be truly predictive. This especially holds true if the preceding studies employed inappropriate selection methods such as univariable selection. Conclusions The source of “background knowledge” should be evaluated with care. Knowledge generated on preceding studies can cause misspecification.

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.

There is an increasing interest in machine learning (ML) algorithms for predicting patient outcomes, as these methods are designed to automatically discover complex data patterns. For example, the random forest (RF) algorithm is designed to identify relevant predictor variables out of a large set of candidates. In addition, researchers may also use external information for variable selection to improve model interpretability and variable selection accuracy, thereby prediction quality. However, it is unclear to which extent, if at all, RF and ML methods may benefit from external information. In this paper, we examine the usefulness of external information from prior variable selection studies that used traditional statistical modeling approaches such as the Lasso, or suboptimal methods such as univariate selection. We conducted a plasmode simulation study based on subsampling a data set from a pharmacoepidemiologic study with nearly 200,000 individuals, two binary outcomes and 1152 candidate predictor (mainly sparse binary) variables. When the scope of candidate predictors was reduced based on external knowledge RF models achieved better calibration, that is, better agreement of predictions and observed outcome rates. However, prediction quality measured by cross-entropy, AUROC or the Brier score did not improve. We recommend appraising the methodological quality of studies that serve as an external information source for future prediction model development.

ObjectivesTo assess biostatistical quality of study protocols submitted to German medical ethics committees according to personal appraisal of their statistical members.DesignWe conducted a web-based survey among biostatisticians who have been active as members in German medical ethics committees during the past 3 years.SettingThe study population was identified by a comprehensive web search on websites of German medical ethics committees.ParticipantsThe final list comprised 86 eligible persons. In total, 57 (66%) completed the survey.QuestionnaireThe first item checked whether the inclusion criterion was met. The last item assessed satisfaction with the survey. Four items aimed to characterise the medical ethics committee in terms of type and location, one item asked for the urgency of biostatistical training addressed to the medical investigators. The main 2×12 items reported an individual assessment of the quality of biostatistical aspects in the submitted study protocols, while distinguishing studies according to the German Medicines Act (AMG)/German Act on Medical Devices (MPG) and studies non-regulated by these laws.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe individual assessment of the quality of biostatistical aspects corresponds to the primary objective. Thus, participants were asked to complete the sentence ‘In x% of the submitted study protocols, the following problem occurs’, where 12 different statistical problems were formulated. All other items assess secondary endpoints.ResultsFor all biostatistical aspects, 45 of 49 (91.8%) participants judged the quality of AMG/MPG study protocols much better than that of ‘non-regulated’ studies. The latter are in median affected 20%–60% more often by statistical problems. The highest need for training was reported for sample size calculation, missing values and multiple comparison procedures.ConclusionsBiostatisticians being active in German medical ethics committees classify the biostatistical quality of study protocols as low for ‘non-regulated’ studies, whereas quality is much better for AMG/MPG studies.

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.