Nathan T. Cannon , Giacomo Savini , Seth M. Pantanelli , Kenneth Hoffer , Petros Aristodemou , Kamran Riaz , David Murphy , David Griffin , Christian Berry , Guillaume Debellemanière , Mathieu Gauvin , Avi Wallerstein , Woong-Joo Whang , Kyungmin Koh , Kazuno Negishi , Ken Hayashi , Diogo Hipólito-Fernandes , David L. Cooke
{"title":"Which Test Is Best: Evaluation of Traditional and Contemporary Statistical Tests for Analysis of Spherical Equivalent Prediction Error","authors":"Nathan T. Cannon , Giacomo Savini , Seth M. Pantanelli , Kenneth Hoffer , Petros Aristodemou , Kamran Riaz , David Murphy , David Griffin , Christian Berry , Guillaume Debellemanière , Mathieu Gauvin , Avi Wallerstein , Woong-Joo Whang , Kyungmin Koh , Kazuno Negishi , Ken Hayashi , Diogo Hipólito-Fernandes , David L. Cooke","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2025.01.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To characterize the performance of traditional and contemporary statistics tests for analysis of spherical equivalent prediction error (SEQ-PE) after cataract surgery, with regard to test significance and self-consistency.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Comparison of the utility of statistical tests.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Subjects: Eyes from 5 academic centers and 2 private practices that had cataract surgery and postoperative manifest refraction between March 2011 and December 2022. SEQ-PE data were randomly divided into subsets with sample sizes of 100, 300, 500, 700, and 2600 eyes. Mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), SD, root mean squared absolute error (RMSAE), and the proportion of eyes within 0.50 diopters (D) of predicted were calculated for 6 power prediction formulas and analyzed using Friedman post hoc Dunn, Cochran <em>Q</em> post hoc McNemar, Eyetemis, and Wilcox-Holladay-Wang-Koch (WHWK) statistical tests. All tests were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm correction. Main outcome measures: The percentage of significant relationships (Percent Significance), proportion of inconsistencies (Inconsistency Ratio), and proportion of self-consistent significant relationships (Significance Index) for each statistical test.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Analysis was performed on 7839 eyes of 7839 patients. WHWK.MAE (42%), WHWK.SD (41%), Eyetemis.MAE (40%), WHWK.RMSAE (39%), and Dunn.MAE (34%) were more robust, respectively, than the remaining 3 tests by Percent Significance (all <em>P</em> < .001). Dunn.MAE had the best Inconsistency Ratio (0.11) in the 100-eye subsets. The same top 5 tests were most robust by Significance Index (0.39, 0.35, 0.35, 0.34, and 0.31, respectively; all <em>P</em> < .02). WHWK.SD and WHWK.RMSAE had the best Significance Indices (both 0.77) in the 2600-eye subsets. McNemar had the poorest Significance Index overall (0.09).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The 5 high-performing tests produced significant results more often and were also self-consistent. WHWK.MAE and McNemar were highest and lowest performing overall, respectively. Dunn.MAE may be useful in sample sizes <150 eyes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"273 ","pages":"Pages 33-42"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939425000467","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
To characterize the performance of traditional and contemporary statistics tests for analysis of spherical equivalent prediction error (SEQ-PE) after cataract surgery, with regard to test significance and self-consistency.
Design
Comparison of the utility of statistical tests.
Methods
Subjects: Eyes from 5 academic centers and 2 private practices that had cataract surgery and postoperative manifest refraction between March 2011 and December 2022. SEQ-PE data were randomly divided into subsets with sample sizes of 100, 300, 500, 700, and 2600 eyes. Mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), SD, root mean squared absolute error (RMSAE), and the proportion of eyes within 0.50 diopters (D) of predicted were calculated for 6 power prediction formulas and analyzed using Friedman post hoc Dunn, Cochran Q post hoc McNemar, Eyetemis, and Wilcox-Holladay-Wang-Koch (WHWK) statistical tests. All tests were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm correction. Main outcome measures: The percentage of significant relationships (Percent Significance), proportion of inconsistencies (Inconsistency Ratio), and proportion of self-consistent significant relationships (Significance Index) for each statistical test.
Results
Analysis was performed on 7839 eyes of 7839 patients. WHWK.MAE (42%), WHWK.SD (41%), Eyetemis.MAE (40%), WHWK.RMSAE (39%), and Dunn.MAE (34%) were more robust, respectively, than the remaining 3 tests by Percent Significance (all P < .001). Dunn.MAE had the best Inconsistency Ratio (0.11) in the 100-eye subsets. The same top 5 tests were most robust by Significance Index (0.39, 0.35, 0.35, 0.34, and 0.31, respectively; all P < .02). WHWK.SD and WHWK.RMSAE had the best Significance Indices (both 0.77) in the 2600-eye subsets. McNemar had the poorest Significance Index overall (0.09).
Conclusions
The 5 high-performing tests produced significant results more often and were also self-consistent. WHWK.MAE and McNemar were highest and lowest performing overall, respectively. Dunn.MAE may be useful in sample sizes <150 eyes.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that welcomes the submission of original, previously unpublished manuscripts directed to ophthalmologists and visual science specialists describing clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations. Published monthly since 1884, the full text of the American Journal of Ophthalmology and supplementary material are also presented online at www.AJO.com and on ScienceDirect.
The American Journal of Ophthalmology publishes Full-Length Articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Correspondences, Books Reports and Announcements. Brief Reports and Case Reports are no longer published. We recommend submitting Brief Reports and Case Reports to our companion publication, the American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports.
Manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they have not been and will not be published elsewhere substantially in any format, and that there are no ethical problems with the content or data collection. Authors may be requested to produce the data upon which the manuscript is based and to answer expeditiously any questions about the manuscript or its authors.