Which Test Is Best: Evaluation of Traditional and Contemporary Statistical Tests for Analysis of Spherical Equivalent Prediction Error

IF 4.1 1区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY American Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2025.01.022
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 ,&nbsp;Giacomo Savini ,&nbsp;Seth M. Pantanelli ,&nbsp;Kenneth Hoffer ,&nbsp;Petros Aristodemou ,&nbsp;Kamran Riaz ,&nbsp;David Murphy ,&nbsp;David Griffin ,&nbsp;Christian Berry ,&nbsp;Guillaume Debellemanière ,&nbsp;Mathieu Gauvin ,&nbsp;Avi Wallerstein ,&nbsp;Woong-Joo Whang ,&nbsp;Kyungmin Koh ,&nbsp;Kazuno Negishi ,&nbsp;Ken Hayashi ,&nbsp;Diogo Hipólito-Fernandes ,&nbsp;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> &lt; .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> &lt; .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 &lt;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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
406
审稿时长
36 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Clinical and Structural Characterization of a Novel TGFBI Mutation Linked to a Lattice Corneal Dystrophy Variant in a Greek Family. Comparative Analysis of Lamina Parameters in Non-glaucomatous Eyes With and Without Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome. A Nomogram Based on Ocular Hemodynamics for Predicting Ischemic Stroke. Multiple parallel lines endotheliitis: a rare cause of transient visual loss. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Primary Angle Closure Disease in an Adult Chinese American Population: The Chinese American Eye Study: Prevalence of Primary Angle Closure Disease in Chinese Americans.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1