↓ Skip to main content

Autoregressive transitional ordinal model to test for treatment effect in neurological trials with complex endpoints

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Autoregressive transitional ordinal model to test for treatment effect in neurological trials with complex endpoints
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0251-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorenzo G. Tanadini, John D. Steeves, Armin Curt, Torsten Hothorn

Abstract

A number of potential therapeutic approaches for neurological disorders have failed to provide convincing evidence of efficacy, prompting pharmaceutical and health companies to discontinue their involvement in drug development. Limitations in the statistical analysis of complex endpoints have very likely had a negative impact on the translational process. We propose a transitional ordinal model with an autoregressive component to overcome previous limitations in the analysis of Upper Extremity Motor Scores, a relevant endpoint in the field of Spinal Cord Injury. Statistical power and clinical interpretation of estimated treatment effects of the proposed model were compared to routinely employed approaches in a large simulation study of two-arm randomized clinical trials. A revisitation of a key historical trial provides further comparison between the different analysis approaches. The proposed model outperformed all other approaches in virtually all simulation settings, achieving on average 14 % higher statistical power than the respective second-best performing approach (range: -1 %, +34 %). Only the transitional model allows treatment effect estimates to be interpreted as conditional odds ratios, providing clear interpretation and visualization. The proposed model takes into account the complex ordinal nature of the endpoint under investigation and explicitly accounts for relevant prognostic factors such as lesion level and baseline information. Superior statistical power, combined with clear clinical interpretation of estimated treatment effects and widespread availability in commercial software, are strong arguments for clinicians and trial scientists to adopt, and further extend, the proposed approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,968,282
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,785
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,069
of 314,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.