Intervention differential effects and regression to the mean in studies where sample selection is based on the initial value of the outcome variable: an evaluation of methods illustrated in weight-management studies

Lucy Beggs, R. Briscoe, C. Griffiths, G. Ellison, M. Gilthorpe
{"title":"Intervention differential effects and regression to the mean in studies where sample selection is based on the initial value of the outcome variable: an evaluation of methods illustrated in weight-management studies","authors":"Lucy Beggs, R. Briscoe, C. Griffiths, G. Ellison, M. Gilthorpe","doi":"10.1080/24709360.2020.1719690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Intervention differential effects (IDEs) occur where changes in an outcome depend upon the initial values of that outcome. Although methods to identify IDEs are well documented, there remains a lack of understanding about the circumstances under which these methods are robust. One context that has not been explored is the identification of intervention differential effect in studies where sample selection is based on the initial value of the outcome being evaluated. We hypothesise that, in such settings, established methods for detecting IDEs will struggle to discriminate these from regression to the mean. Methods: Using simulated datasets of weight-loss intervention programmes that recruit according to initial body mass index, we explore the reliability of Oldham's method and multilevel modelling (MLM) to detect IDEs. Results: In datasets simulated with no IDE, Oldham's method and MLM yield Type I error rates >90%, confirming that threshold selection/truncation leads to bias due to regression to the mean. Type I error rates return close to 5% for both methods when a control group is introduced. Conclusions: Oldham's method and MLM can robustly detect IDEs in this setting, but only if analyses incorporate a control group for comparison.","PeriodicalId":37240,"journal":{"name":"Biostatistics and Epidemiology","volume":"4 1","pages":"172 - 188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24709360.2020.1719690","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biostatistics and Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24709360.2020.1719690","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Intervention differential effects (IDEs) occur where changes in an outcome depend upon the initial values of that outcome. Although methods to identify IDEs are well documented, there remains a lack of understanding about the circumstances under which these methods are robust. One context that has not been explored is the identification of intervention differential effect in studies where sample selection is based on the initial value of the outcome being evaluated. We hypothesise that, in such settings, established methods for detecting IDEs will struggle to discriminate these from regression to the mean. Methods: Using simulated datasets of weight-loss intervention programmes that recruit according to initial body mass index, we explore the reliability of Oldham's method and multilevel modelling (MLM) to detect IDEs. Results: In datasets simulated with no IDE, Oldham's method and MLM yield Type I error rates >90%, confirming that threshold selection/truncation leads to bias due to regression to the mean. Type I error rates return close to 5% for both methods when a control group is introduced. Conclusions: Oldham's method and MLM can robustly detect IDEs in this setting, but only if analyses incorporate a control group for comparison.
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
在样本选择基于结果变量初始值的研究中,干预差异效应和回归平均值:对体重管理研究中所示方法的评估
背景:干预差异效应(IDEs)发生在结果的变化取决于该结果的初始值的情况下。尽管识别IDE的方法有很好的文档记录,但对这些方法在什么情况下是稳健的仍然缺乏了解。一个尚未探索的背景是,在样本选择基于评估结果初始值的研究中,识别干预差异效应。我们假设,在这种情况下,检测IDE的既定方法将很难区分回归到均值。方法:使用根据初始体重指数招募的减肥干预计划的模拟数据集,我们探讨了Oldham方法和多层次建模(MLM)检测IDE的可靠性。结果:在没有IDE的模拟数据集中,Oldham的方法和MLM产生了>90%的I型错误率,证实了阈值选择/截断会由于回归到平均值而导致偏差。当引入对照组时,两种方法的I型错误率都接近5%。结论:Oldham的方法和MLM可以在这种情况下稳健地检测IDE,但前提是分析包含对照组进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biostatistics and Epidemiology
Biostatistics and Epidemiology Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Adjusting for bias due to measurement error in functional quantile regression models with error-prone functional and scalar covariates. The analysis of Salmonella’s ability to survive in different external environments Notice of duplicate publication: public transportation network scan for rapid surveillance Global Odds Model with Proportional Odds and Trend Odds Applied to Gross and Microscopic Brain Infarcts. Flexible and robust procedure for subgroup inference
×
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