首页 > 最新文献

BMC Medical Research Methodology最新文献

英文 中文
A comparison of time-varying propensity score vs sequential stratification approaches to longitudinal matching with a time-varying treatment. 时变倾向得分与时变治疗纵向匹配顺序分层法的比较。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02391-3
Morgan Richey, Matthew L Maciejewski, Lindsay Zepel, David Arterburn, Aniket Kawatkar, Caroline E Sloan, Valerie A Smith

Background: Methods for matching in longitudinal cohort studies, such as sequential stratification and time-varying propensity scores, facilitate causal inferences in the context of time-dependent treatments that are not randomized where patient eligibility or treatment status changes over time. The tradeoffs in available approaches have not been compared previously, so we compare two methods using simulations based on a retrospective cohort of patients eligible for weight loss surgery, some of whom received it.

Methods: This study compares matching completeness, bias, coverage, and precision among three approaches to longitudinal matching: (1) time-varying propensity scores (tvPS), (2) sequential stratification that matches exactly on all covariates used in tvPS (SS-Full) and (3) sequential stratification that exact matches on a subset of covariates (SS-Selected). These comparisons are made in the context of a deep sampling frame (50:1) and a shallow sampling frame (5:1) of eligible comparators. A simulation study was employed to estimate the relative performance of these approaches.

Results: In 1,000 simulations each, tvPS retained more than 99.9% of treated patients in both the deep and shallow sampling frames, while a smaller proportion of treated patients were retained for SS-Full (91.6%) and SS-Selected (98.2%) in the deep sampling frame. In the shallow sampling frame, sequential stratification retained many fewer treated patients (73.9% SS-Full, 92.0% SS-Selected) than tvPS yet coverage, precision and bias were comparable for tvPS, SS-Full and SS-Selected in the deep and shallow sampling frames.

Conclusion: Time-varying propensity scores have comparable performance to sequential stratification in terms of coverage, bias, and precision, with superior match completeness. While performance was generally comparable across methods, greater match completeness makes tvPS an attractive option for longitudinal matching studies where external validity is highly valued.

背景:纵向队列研究中的匹配方法(如顺序分层和时变倾向分数)有助于在非随机治疗的情况下进行因果推断,因为患者的治疗资格或治疗状态会随时间发生变化。以前从未比较过现有方法的利弊,因此我们使用基于符合减肥手术条件的患者回顾性队列的模拟,对两种方法进行了比较,其中一些患者接受了减肥手术:本研究比较了三种纵向匹配方法的匹配完整性、偏差、覆盖率和精确度:(1)时变倾向评分(tvPS);(2)与 tvPS 中使用的所有协变量完全匹配的序列分层(SS-Full);(3)与协变量子集完全匹配的序列分层(SS-Selected)。这些比较是在符合条件的比较对象的深度抽样框架(50:1)和浅度抽样框架(5:1)中进行的。我们采用了模拟研究来估算这些方法的相对性能:在1000次模拟中,tvPS在深度和浅度抽样框架中均保留了99.9%以上的治疗患者,而在深度抽样框架中,SS-Full(91.6%)和SS-Selected(98.2%)保留的治疗患者比例较小。在浅层抽样框架中,顺序分层法保留的治疗患者(73.9% SS-Full,92.0% SS-Selected)比 tvPS 少很多,但在深层和浅层抽样框架中,tvPS、SS-Full 和 SS-Selected 的覆盖率、精确度和偏差相当:在覆盖率、偏差和精确度方面,时变倾向得分与顺序分层的性能相当,但匹配的完整性更好。虽然各种方法的性能大体相当,但更高的匹配完整性使倾向评分成为非常重视外部效度的纵向匹配研究的一个有吸引力的选择。
{"title":"A comparison of time-varying propensity score vs sequential stratification approaches to longitudinal matching with a time-varying treatment.","authors":"Morgan Richey, Matthew L Maciejewski, Lindsay Zepel, David Arterburn, Aniket Kawatkar, Caroline E Sloan, Valerie A Smith","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02391-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02391-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods for matching in longitudinal cohort studies, such as sequential stratification and time-varying propensity scores, facilitate causal inferences in the context of time-dependent treatments that are not randomized where patient eligibility or treatment status changes over time. The tradeoffs in available approaches have not been compared previously, so we compare two methods using simulations based on a retrospective cohort of patients eligible for weight loss surgery, some of whom received it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study compares matching completeness, bias, coverage, and precision among three approaches to longitudinal matching: (1) time-varying propensity scores (tvPS), (2) sequential stratification that matches exactly on all covariates used in tvPS (SS-Full) and (3) sequential stratification that exact matches on a subset of covariates (SS-Selected). These comparisons are made in the context of a deep sampling frame (50:1) and a shallow sampling frame (5:1) of eligible comparators. A simulation study was employed to estimate the relative performance of these approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 1,000 simulations each, tvPS retained more than 99.9% of treated patients in both the deep and shallow sampling frames, while a smaller proportion of treated patients were retained for SS-Full (91.6%) and SS-Selected (98.2%) in the deep sampling frame. In the shallow sampling frame, sequential stratification retained many fewer treated patients (73.9% SS-Full, 92.0% SS-Selected) than tvPS yet coverage, precision and bias were comparable for tvPS, SS-Full and SS-Selected in the deep and shallow sampling frames.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Time-varying propensity scores have comparable performance to sequential stratification in terms of coverage, bias, and precision, with superior match completeness. While performance was generally comparable across methods, greater match completeness makes tvPS an attractive option for longitudinal matching studies where external validity is highly valued.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"280"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562661/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
geessbin: an R package for analyzing small-sample binary data using modified generalized estimating equations with bias-adjusted covariance estimators. geessbin:使用修正广义估计方程和偏差调整协方差估计器分析小样本二元数据的 R 软件包。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02368-2
Ryota Ishii, Tomohiro Ohigashi, Kazushi Maruo, Masahiko Gosho

Background: The generalized estimating equation (GEE) method is widely used for analyzing longitudinal and clustered data. Although the GEE estimate for regression coefficients and sandwich covariance estimate are consistent regardless of the choice of covariance structure, they are generally biased for small sample sizes. Various researchers have proposed modified GEE methods and covariance estimators to handle small-sample bias.

Results: We briefly present bias-corrected and penalized GEE methods, along with 11 bias-adjusted covariance estimators. In addition, we focus on analyzing longitudinal or clustered data with binary outcomes using the logit link function and introduce package geessbin in R to implement conventional and modified GEE methods with bias-adjusted covariance estimators. Finally, we illustrate the implementation and detail a usage example of the package. The package is available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/geessbin/index.html .

Conclusions: The geessbin package provides three GEE estimates with numerous covariance estimates. It is useful for analyzing correlated data such as longitudinal and clustered data. Additionally, the geessbin is designed to be user-friendly, making it accessible to non-statisticians.

背景:广义估计方程(GEE)法被广泛用于分析纵向和聚类数据。尽管无论选择何种协方差结构,回归系数的 GEE 估计值和三明治协方差估计值都是一致的,但对于小样本量而言,它们一般都存在偏差。不同的研究者提出了修改后的 GEE 方法和协方差估计方法来处理小样本偏差:我们简要介绍了偏差校正和惩罚 GEE 方法,以及 11 种偏差调整协方差估计器。此外,我们还重点分析了使用 logit 链接函数分析二元结果的纵向或聚类数据,并介绍了 R 中的 geessbin 软件包,以实现带有偏差调整协方差估计器的传统和修正 GEE 方法。最后,我们将对该软件包的实现进行说明,并详细介绍一个使用示例。该软件包可从 R 综合存档网络(CRAN)https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/geessbin/index.html .Conclusions 获取:geessbin 软件包提供了三个 GEE 估计和多个协方差估计。它对于分析纵向数据和聚类数据等相关数据非常有用。此外,geessbin 的设计对用户友好,使非统计人员也能使用。
{"title":"geessbin: an R package for analyzing small-sample binary data using modified generalized estimating equations with bias-adjusted covariance estimators.","authors":"Ryota Ishii, Tomohiro Ohigashi, Kazushi Maruo, Masahiko Gosho","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02368-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02368-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The generalized estimating equation (GEE) method is widely used for analyzing longitudinal and clustered data. Although the GEE estimate for regression coefficients and sandwich covariance estimate are consistent regardless of the choice of covariance structure, they are generally biased for small sample sizes. Various researchers have proposed modified GEE methods and covariance estimators to handle small-sample bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We briefly present bias-corrected and penalized GEE methods, along with 11 bias-adjusted covariance estimators. In addition, we focus on analyzing longitudinal or clustered data with binary outcomes using the logit link function and introduce package geessbin in R to implement conventional and modified GEE methods with bias-adjusted covariance estimators. Finally, we illustrate the implementation and detail a usage example of the package. The package is available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/geessbin/index.html .</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The geessbin package provides three GEE estimates with numerous covariance estimates. It is useful for analyzing correlated data such as longitudinal and clustered data. Additionally, the geessbin is designed to be user-friendly, making it accessible to non-statisticians.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"277"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11558877/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Evaluating the current methodological practices and issues in existing literature in pooling complex surveys: a systematic review. 评估当前汇集复杂调查的方法实践和现有文献中的问题:系统性综述。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02400-5
Md Sabbir Ahmed Mayen, Salwa Nawsheen Nisha, Sumya Afrin, Tanvir Ahammed, Muhammad Abdul Baker Chowdhury, Md Jamal Uddin

Background: Pooling data from complex survey designs is increasingly used in the health and medical sciences. However, current methodological practices are not well documented in the literature while performing the pooling strategy. We aimed to review related pooling studies and evaluate the quality of pooling within the framework of specific methodological guidelines, particularly when combining complex surveys such as Demographic & Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS).

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search focusing on studies utilizing the pooling method with DHS and MICS survey data. These studies were selected from those published between 2010 and 2021 and were retrieved from electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) in accordance with pre-defined inclusion criteria. Then, we extracted 355 studies for the final review and evaluated the reporting quality of the pooling strategy while considering some methodological issues.

Results: The majority of studies (81.4%) reported using a pooled (one-stage) approach, while 11.8% used a separate (two-stage) approach, and 6.8% used both approaches. Approximately 63.3% of studies did not clearly describe their pooling strategy. Only 3.4% of the studies mentioned the variable harmonization process, while 66.9% addressed dealing with heterogeneity between surveys. All studies that used the separate (two-stage) approach conducted a meta-analytic procedure, while 38.1% of studies using the pooled approach employed a multilevel model. More than half of the studies (55.6%) mentioned the use of clustered standard errors. The Delta method, Bootstrap, and Taylor linearization were each applied in 11.1% of the studies for variance estimation. Survey weights, primary sampling unit (PSU) or cluster, and strata were used together in 30.5% of the studies. Survey weights were employed by 69.8%, PSU or cluster by 43.8%, and the strata variable by 31.7%. Sensitivity analysis was conducted in 16% of the studies.

Conclusions: Our study revealed that fundamental methodological issues associated with pooling complex survey databases, such as the selection of pooling procedures, data harmonization, accounting for cycle effects, quality control checks, addressing heterogeneity, selecting model effects, utilizing survey design variables, and dealing with missing values, etc., were inadequately reported in the included studies. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors examine pooling studies more attentively and utilize the customized checklist developed by our study to assess the quality of future pooling studies.

背景:从复杂的调查设计中汇总数据越来越多地应用于健康和医学科学领域。然而,在执行汇总策略时,目前的方法实践并没有在文献中得到很好的记录。我们旨在回顾相关的汇总研究,并在特定方法指南的框架内评估汇总的质量,尤其是在结合人口与健康调查(DHS)和多指标类集调查(MICS)等复杂调查时:我们进行了一次系统的文献检索,重点是利用人口与健康调查和多指标类集调查数据进行汇总的研究。这些研究选自 2010 年至 2021 年间发表的研究,并按照预先确定的纳入标准从电子数据库(PubMed 和 Scopus)中检索。然后,我们抽取了 355 项研究进行最终审查,并评估了汇总策略的报告质量,同时考虑了一些方法学问题:大多数研究(81.4%)报告使用了汇总(一阶段)方法,11.8%使用了单独(两阶段)方法,6.8%同时使用了两种方法。约 63.3% 的研究没有明确说明其汇总策略。只有 3.4% 的研究提到了变量协调过程,而 66.9% 的研究提到了如何处理调查之间的异质性。所有采用单独(两阶段)方法的研究都进行了元分析,而 38.1%采用汇总方法的研究采用了多层次模型。半数以上的研究(55.6%)提到使用了聚类标准误差。有 11.1%的研究采用了德尔塔法、Bootstrap 法和泰勒线性化法进行方差估计。30.5% 的研究同时使用了调查权重、主要抽样单位(PSU)或群组以及分层。69.8%的研究使用了调查权重,43.8%的研究使用了主要抽样单位或群组,31.7%的研究使用了分层变量。16%的研究进行了敏感性分析:我们的研究表明,纳入的研究没有充分报告与汇集复杂调查数据库相关的基本方法问题,如汇集程序的选择、数据协调、周期效应的考虑、质量控制检查、异质性的处理、模型效应的选择、调查设计变量的利用以及缺失值的处理等。我们建议作者、读者、审稿人和编辑更仔细地检查汇集研究,并利用我们的研究开发的定制检查表来评估未来汇集研究的质量。
{"title":"Evaluating the current methodological practices and issues in existing literature in pooling complex surveys: a systematic review.","authors":"Md Sabbir Ahmed Mayen, Salwa Nawsheen Nisha, Sumya Afrin, Tanvir Ahammed, Muhammad Abdul Baker Chowdhury, Md Jamal Uddin","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02400-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02400-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pooling data from complex survey designs is increasingly used in the health and medical sciences. However, current methodological practices are not well documented in the literature while performing the pooling strategy. We aimed to review related pooling studies and evaluate the quality of pooling within the framework of specific methodological guidelines, particularly when combining complex surveys such as Demographic & Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search focusing on studies utilizing the pooling method with DHS and MICS survey data. These studies were selected from those published between 2010 and 2021 and were retrieved from electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) in accordance with pre-defined inclusion criteria. Then, we extracted 355 studies for the final review and evaluated the reporting quality of the pooling strategy while considering some methodological issues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of studies (81.4%) reported using a pooled (one-stage) approach, while 11.8% used a separate (two-stage) approach, and 6.8% used both approaches. Approximately 63.3% of studies did not clearly describe their pooling strategy. Only 3.4% of the studies mentioned the variable harmonization process, while 66.9% addressed dealing with heterogeneity between surveys. All studies that used the separate (two-stage) approach conducted a meta-analytic procedure, while 38.1% of studies using the pooled approach employed a multilevel model. More than half of the studies (55.6%) mentioned the use of clustered standard errors. The Delta method, Bootstrap, and Taylor linearization were each applied in 11.1% of the studies for variance estimation. Survey weights, primary sampling unit (PSU) or cluster, and strata were used together in 30.5% of the studies. Survey weights were employed by 69.8%, PSU or cluster by 43.8%, and the strata variable by 31.7%. Sensitivity analysis was conducted in 16% of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study revealed that fundamental methodological issues associated with pooling complex survey databases, such as the selection of pooling procedures, data harmonization, accounting for cycle effects, quality control checks, addressing heterogeneity, selecting model effects, utilizing survey design variables, and dealing with missing values, etc., were inadequately reported in the included studies. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors examine pooling studies more attentively and utilize the customized checklist developed by our study to assess the quality of future pooling studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"279"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562085/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
On the assessment of the ability of measurements, nowcasts, and forecasts to track changes. 关于评估测量、预报和预测跟踪变化的能力。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02397-x
Jonas Rieger, Bolin Liu, Bernd Saugel, Oliver Grothe

Background: Measurements, nowcasts, or forecasts ideally should correctly reflect changes in the values of interest. In this article, we focus on how to assess the ability of measurements, nowcasts, or forecasts to correctly predict the direction of changes in values - which we refer to as the ability to track changes (ATC).

Methods: We review and develop visual techniques and quantitative measures to assess ATC. Extensions for noisy data and estimation uncertainty are implemented using bootstrap confidence intervals and exclusion areas.

Results: We exemplarily illustrate the proposed methods to assess the ability to track changes for nowcasting during the COVID-19 pandemic, patient admissions to an emergency department, and non-invasive blood pressure measurements. The proposed methods effectively evaluate ATC across different applications.

Conclusions: The developed ATC assessment methods offer a comprehensive toolkit for evaluating the ATC of measurements, nowcasts, and forecasts. These techniques provide valuable insights into model performance, complementing traditional accuracy measures and enabling more informed decision-making in various fields, including public health, healthcare management, and medical diagnostics.

背景:测量、现在预测或预报最好能正确反映相关数值的变化。在本文中,我们将重点讨论如何评估测量、现在预测或预报正确预测数值变化方向的能力--我们称之为跟踪变化的能力(ATC):我们回顾并开发了评估 ATC 的直观技术和定量测量方法。方法:我们回顾并开发了评估 ATC 的可视化技术和量化指标,并使用引导置信区间和排除区域对噪声数据和估计不确定性进行了扩展:我们以实例说明了所提出的方法,以评估在 COVID-19 大流行、急诊科病人入院和无创血压测量期间跟踪 Nowcasting 变化的能力。所提出的方法有效评估了不同应用中的 ATC:所开发的 ATC 评估方法为评估测量、现在预测和预测的 ATC 提供了一个全面的工具包。这些技术为模型性能提供了有价值的见解,补充了传统的准确度测量方法,使公共卫生、医疗保健管理和医疗诊断等各个领域的决策更加明智。
{"title":"On the assessment of the ability of measurements, nowcasts, and forecasts to track changes.","authors":"Jonas Rieger, Bolin Liu, Bernd Saugel, Oliver Grothe","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02397-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02397-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Measurements, nowcasts, or forecasts ideally should correctly reflect changes in the values of interest. In this article, we focus on how to assess the ability of measurements, nowcasts, or forecasts to correctly predict the direction of changes in values - which we refer to as the ability to track changes (ATC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We review and develop visual techniques and quantitative measures to assess ATC. Extensions for noisy data and estimation uncertainty are implemented using bootstrap confidence intervals and exclusion areas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We exemplarily illustrate the proposed methods to assess the ability to track changes for nowcasting during the COVID-19 pandemic, patient admissions to an emergency department, and non-invasive blood pressure measurements. The proposed methods effectively evaluate ATC across different applications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The developed ATC assessment methods offer a comprehensive toolkit for evaluating the ATC of measurements, nowcasts, and forecasts. These techniques provide valuable insights into model performance, complementing traditional accuracy measures and enabling more informed decision-making in various fields, including public health, healthcare management, and medical diagnostics.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"275"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555927/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Balancing between reality, ideality, and equity: critical reflections from recruiting key informants for qualitative health research. 在现实、意识形态和公平之间取得平衡:为定性健康研究招募关键信息提供者的批判性思考。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02403-2
Hanna Luetke Lanfer, Sarah Krawiec, Miriam Schierenbeck, Victoria Touzel, Doreen Reifegerste

Background: Key informant interviews (KII) are a widely used method in qualitative health research to gain in-depth insights from individuals with specialized knowledge, experience, or access that is crucial to the research topic. However, there is growing criticism regarding how the selection of key informants is insufficiently described in research. This opacity is problematic as the authority and knowledge of key informants may be given undue weight in research findings, potentially overshadowing other non-expert samples. The resulting imbalance in representation can lead to favoring certain viewpoints while marginalizing others, and thereby reinforcing existing inequities.

Methods: Using our KII study as an example, we demonstrate how we initially composed an ideal sample based on theoretical considerations and subsequently operationalized it in the field. We employed a selective recruitment strategy informed by intersectional theory, targeting physicians with migration backgrounds from Middle Eastern countries for a study on cancer prevention and screening. Our recruitment process combined direct methods, including database searches and email outreach, with indirect methods like snowball sampling and engagement with multipliers. The recruitment strategy was iterative, allowing for ongoing assessment and adaptation to ensure a diverse and representative sample.

Results: The KII study successfully recruited 21 physicians with diverse social categories, including different genders, migration backgrounds, language skills, and medical specialties. Direct recruitment was more effective than indirect methods and allowed for greater control in reaching out to specific subsamples. It highlights the importance of flexible and persistent recruitment strategies to achieve the desired sample.

Conclusions: This KII study underscores the interplay between methodological ideals and the practical realities of recruiting a diverse, carefully composed sample of key informants in health research. Our intersectional approach aimed to ensure equitable representation by considering power dynamics and refining recruitment strategies, while balancing the challenges of real-world fieldwork-such as engaging busy physicians with specific recruitment criteria-with practical adaptability. Our KII study emphasizes the need for ongoing reflexivity to balance ideality and equity with practical feasibility.

背景:关键信息提供者访谈 (KII) 是定性健康研究中广泛使用的一种方法,它可以从拥有对研究课题至关重要的专业知识、经验或渠道的个人那里获得深入的见解。然而,越来越多的人批评研究中对关键信息提供者的选择描述不足。这种不透明是有问题的,因为在研究结果中,关键信息提供者的权威和知识可能会被赋予不应有的分量,有可能会盖过其他非专家样本。由此造成的代表性不平衡可能导致某些观点受到青睐,而另一些观点则被边缘化,从而加剧了现有的不公平现象:方法:以我们的 KII 研究为例,我们展示了如何根据理论考虑初步组成理想样本,并随后在实地将其付诸实施。我们采用了以交叉理论为基础的选择性招募策略,针对来自中东国家、具有移民背景的医生进行癌症预防和筛查研究。我们的招募过程结合了直接方法(包括数据库搜索和电子邮件推广)和间接方法(如滚雪球取样和与乘数效应者接触)。招募策略是反复进行的,以便不断进行评估和调整,确保样本的多样性和代表性:KII 研究成功招募了 21 名医生,他们来自不同的社会阶层,包括不同的性别、移民背景、语言技能和医学专业。直接招募比间接招募更有效,而且在接触特定子样本时可以有更大的控制权。它强调了灵活而持久的招募策略对于获得理想样本的重要性:这项 KII 研究强调了在健康研究中招募多样化、精心组成的关键信息提供者样本时,方法理想与实际现实之间的相互作用。我们的交叉方法旨在通过考虑权力动态和完善招募策略来确保公平的代表性,同时平衡现实世界中实地工作所面临的挑战--比如让繁忙的医生参与到特定的招募标准中来--以及实际的适应性。我们的 KII 研究强调了持续反思的必要性,以平衡思想性和公平性与实际可行性。
{"title":"Balancing between reality, ideality, and equity: critical reflections from recruiting key informants for qualitative health research.","authors":"Hanna Luetke Lanfer, Sarah Krawiec, Miriam Schierenbeck, Victoria Touzel, Doreen Reifegerste","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02403-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02403-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Key informant interviews (KII) are a widely used method in qualitative health research to gain in-depth insights from individuals with specialized knowledge, experience, or access that is crucial to the research topic. However, there is growing criticism regarding how the selection of key informants is insufficiently described in research. This opacity is problematic as the authority and knowledge of key informants may be given undue weight in research findings, potentially overshadowing other non-expert samples. The resulting imbalance in representation can lead to favoring certain viewpoints while marginalizing others, and thereby reinforcing existing inequities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using our KII study as an example, we demonstrate how we initially composed an ideal sample based on theoretical considerations and subsequently operationalized it in the field. We employed a selective recruitment strategy informed by intersectional theory, targeting physicians with migration backgrounds from Middle Eastern countries for a study on cancer prevention and screening. Our recruitment process combined direct methods, including database searches and email outreach, with indirect methods like snowball sampling and engagement with multipliers. The recruitment strategy was iterative, allowing for ongoing assessment and adaptation to ensure a diverse and representative sample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The KII study successfully recruited 21 physicians with diverse social categories, including different genders, migration backgrounds, language skills, and medical specialties. Direct recruitment was more effective than indirect methods and allowed for greater control in reaching out to specific subsamples. It highlights the importance of flexible and persistent recruitment strategies to achieve the desired sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This KII study underscores the interplay between methodological ideals and the practical realities of recruiting a diverse, carefully composed sample of key informants in health research. Our intersectional approach aimed to ensure equitable representation by considering power dynamics and refining recruitment strategies, while balancing the challenges of real-world fieldwork-such as engaging busy physicians with specific recruitment criteria-with practical adaptability. Our KII study emphasizes the need for ongoing reflexivity to balance ideality and equity with practical feasibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"276"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555920/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Evidence pointing toward invalidity of the SF-8 physical and mental scales: a fusion validity assessment. 指向 SF-8 身心量表无效的证据:融合有效性评估。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02387-z
Leslie A Hayduk, Matthias Hoben, Carole Estabrooks

Background: The SF-8™ Short Form Health Survey creates physical and mental health scale scores from responses to eight survey questions. These widely used scales demonstrate reasonable reliablity, and some forms of validity but have not been assessed for fusion validity. We assess the fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales, and provide comments assisting fusion validity assessment of other scales.

Methods: Checking the fusion validity of a scale requires including the scale and its constituent indicators in a structural equation model that has at least one variable causally downstream from the scale. We assessed fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales in the context of work-related variables for care aides working in Canadian long-term care homes. Variables causally downstream from physical and mental health, such as work burnout, permit checking whether the SF-8 indicator items fuse to form cogent physical and mental scales, irrespective of whether those indicators share common-factor foundations.

Results: We found that the SF-8 physical and mental health scales did not function appropriately. The scales inappropriately claimed effects for several items that had no effects and provided biased estimates of other effects. These deficiencies seem grounded in the scales' developmental history, which implicitly bolstered selection of some causally ambiguous items and paid insufficient attention to component factor model testing.

Conclusion: Our observations of causal incongruities question whether the SF-8 can provide valid assessments of physical and mental health. However, it would be imprudent to discontinue SF-8 use on the basis of a single study suggesting invalidity. This uncomfortable conclusion can be rechecked by re-analyzing data from any project that employed the SF-8 and recorded even one causal consequence of physical or mental health. The power of fusion validity assessment comes from connecting the recorded consequences simultaneously to both the scale and the items from which that scale is calculated.

背景:SF-8™ 短表健康调查根据对 8 个调查问题的回答得出生理和心理健康量表分数。这些广泛使用的量表显示出合理的可靠性和某些形式的有效性,但尚未对其融合有效性进行评估。我们对 SF-8 身心健康量表的融合效度进行了评估,并对其他量表的融合效度评估提出了建议:检查量表的融合效度需要将量表及其组成指标纳入结构方程模型,该模型至少有一个变量与量表有因果关系。我们结合在加拿大长期护理院工作的护理助理的工作相关变量,评估了 SF-8 身心健康量表的融合有效性。与身心健康有因果关系的下游变量(如工作倦怠)允许检查 SF-8 指标项目是否融合形成了有说服力的身心健康量表,无论这些指标是否具有共同的因素基础:我们发现,SF-8 身心健康量表的功能并不恰当。这些量表不恰当地宣称了几个没有影响的项目的影响,并对其他影响进行了有偏差的估计。这些缺陷似乎与量表的发展历史有关,因为量表的发展历史暗中支持了一些因果关系不明确的项目的选择,并且对成分因子模型测试重视不够:结论:我们观察到的因果关系不协调现象对 SF-8 能否提供有效的身心健康评估提出了质疑。然而,如果仅凭一项研究表明 SF-8 无效就停止使用,那就太轻率了。可以通过重新分析任何使用 SF-8 并记录了身体或精神健康的哪怕一个因果后果的项目数据,来重新检查这一令人不安的结论。融合效度评估的力量来自于同时将记录的后果与量表和计算量表的项目联系起来。
{"title":"Evidence pointing toward invalidity of the SF-8 physical and mental scales: a fusion validity assessment.","authors":"Leslie A Hayduk, Matthias Hoben, Carole Estabrooks","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02387-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02387-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The SF-8™ Short Form Health Survey creates physical and mental health scale scores from responses to eight survey questions. These widely used scales demonstrate reasonable reliablity, and some forms of validity but have not been assessed for fusion validity. We assess the fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales, and provide comments assisting fusion validity assessment of other scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Checking the fusion validity of a scale requires including the scale and its constituent indicators in a structural equation model that has at least one variable causally downstream from the scale. We assessed fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales in the context of work-related variables for care aides working in Canadian long-term care homes. Variables causally downstream from physical and mental health, such as work burnout, permit checking whether the SF-8 indicator items fuse to form cogent physical and mental scales, irrespective of whether those indicators share common-factor foundations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the SF-8 physical and mental health scales did not function appropriately. The scales inappropriately claimed effects for several items that had no effects and provided biased estimates of other effects. These deficiencies seem grounded in the scales' developmental history, which implicitly bolstered selection of some causally ambiguous items and paid insufficient attention to component factor model testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our observations of causal incongruities question whether the SF-8 can provide valid assessments of physical and mental health. However, it would be imprudent to discontinue SF-8 use on the basis of a single study suggesting invalidity. This uncomfortable conclusion can be rechecked by re-analyzing data from any project that employed the SF-8 and recorded even one causal consequence of physical or mental health. The power of fusion validity assessment comes from connecting the recorded consequences simultaneously to both the scale and the items from which that scale is calculated.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"274"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552401/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Lack of pragmatic attitude of self-labelled pragmatic trials on manual therapy: a methodological review. 自我标榜的徒手疗法实用性试验缺乏实用性态度:方法论综述。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02393-1
S Roura, G Alvarez, D Hohenschurz-Schmidt, I Solà, R Núñez-Cortés, J Bracchiglione, C Fernández-Jané, J Phalip, I Gich, M Sitjà-Rabert, G Urrútia

Background: Pragmatic randomized controlled trials are getting more interest to improve trials' external validity. This study aimed to assess how pragmatic the design of the self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field is.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field until January 2024 were included. Two independent reviewers collected and extracted data related to the intention of the trial, the rationale for the intervention, and specific features of the trial and performed an assessment using the PRECIS-2 tool.

Results: Of 39 self-labelled pragmatic trials, the mean PRECIS-2 score was 3.5 (SD: 0.6). Choice of outcome measures, how the interventions were performed, the follow-up of the participants and how all the available data were included in the statistical analysis were the domains rated as most 'pragmatic'. Participants' eligibility, recruitment, and setting obtained lower scores. Less than 25% of the trials claimed that the aim was to investigate an intervention under real-world conditions and to make clinical decisions about its effectiveness. In the 21% of the sample the authors described neither the proof-of-concept of the intervention nor the state of previous studies addressing related research questions.

Conclusions: Self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials showed a moderately pragmatic attitude. Beyond the label 'pragmatic', the description of the intention of the trial and the context of every PRECIS-2 domain is crucial to understanding the real pragmatism of a trial.

背景:为了提高试验的外部效度,务实随机对照试验越来越受到关注。本研究旨在评估徒手治疗领域自我标注的务实随机对照试验的设计是否务实:方法:我们检索了MEDLINE和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册,纳入了2024年1月之前在徒手治疗领域进行的自我标记的实用随机对照试验。两名独立审稿人收集并提取了与试验意图、干预原理和试验具体特点相关的数据,并使用 PRECIS-2 工具进行了评估:结果:在 39 项自我标注的实用性试验中,PRECIS-2 的平均得分为 3.5(标度:0.6)。被评为最 "务实 "的领域包括结果测量的选择、干预措施的执行方式、参与者的随访以及统计分析中如何纳入所有可用数据。参与者资格、招募和环境的评分较低。只有不到 25% 的试验声称其目的是在真实世界条件下研究干预措施,并就其有效性做出临床决策。在21%的样本中,作者既没有描述干预措施的概念验证,也没有描述以前针对相关研究问题的研究情况:结论:自我标榜为 "务实 "的随机对照试验表现出适度务实的态度。除了 "务实 "标签外,对试验意图和 PRECIS-2 各领域背景的描述对于了解试验的真正务实性至关重要。
{"title":"Lack of pragmatic attitude of self-labelled pragmatic trials on manual therapy: a methodological review.","authors":"S Roura, G Alvarez, D Hohenschurz-Schmidt, I Solà, R Núñez-Cortés, J Bracchiglione, C Fernández-Jané, J Phalip, I Gich, M Sitjà-Rabert, G Urrútia","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02393-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02393-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pragmatic randomized controlled trials are getting more interest to improve trials' external validity. This study aimed to assess how pragmatic the design of the self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field is.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials in the manual therapy field until January 2024 were included. Two independent reviewers collected and extracted data related to the intention of the trial, the rationale for the intervention, and specific features of the trial and performed an assessment using the PRECIS-2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 39 self-labelled pragmatic trials, the mean PRECIS-2 score was 3.5 (SD: 0.6). Choice of outcome measures, how the interventions were performed, the follow-up of the participants and how all the available data were included in the statistical analysis were the domains rated as most 'pragmatic'. Participants' eligibility, recruitment, and setting obtained lower scores. Less than 25% of the trials claimed that the aim was to investigate an intervention under real-world conditions and to make clinical decisions about its effectiveness. In the 21% of the sample the authors described neither the proof-of-concept of the intervention nor the state of previous studies addressing related research questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Self-labelled pragmatic randomised controlled trials showed a moderately pragmatic attitude. Beyond the label 'pragmatic', the description of the intention of the trial and the context of every PRECIS-2 domain is crucial to understanding the real pragmatism of a trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"273"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552307/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The hazard of using the Poisson model to cope with immortal time bias in the case of time-varying hazard. 在时变危害情况下,使用泊松模型应对不朽时间偏差的危害。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-09 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02396-y
Federico Rea, Gabriella Morabito, Giovanni Corrao, Anna Cantarutti

Background: A time-dependent analysis, usually by means of Poisson and Cox regression models, can be applied to prevent immortal time bias. However, the use of the Poisson model requires the assumption that the event rate is constant over time. This study aims to assess the potential consequences of using the Poisson model to cope with immortal time bias on estimating the exposure-outcome relationship in the case of time-varying risks.

Methods: A simulation study was carried out. Survival times were assumed to follow a Weibull distribution, and the Weibull parameters were chosen to identify three different scenarios: the hazard of the event is constant, decreases, or increases over time. A dichotomous time-varying exposure in which patients can change at most once from unexposed to exposed was considered. The Poisson model was fitted to estimate the exposure-outcome association.

Results: Small changes in the outcome risk over time (as denoted by the shape parameter of the Weibull distribution) strongly affected the exposure-outcome association estimate. The estimated effect of exposure was always lower and greater than the true exposure effect when the event risk decreases or increases over time, and this was the case irrespective of the true exposure effect. The bias magnitude was positively associated with the prevalence of and time to exposure.

Conclusions: Biased estimates were obtained from the Poisson model to cope with immortal time. In settings with a time-varying outcome risk, the model should adjust for the trend in outcome risk. Otherwise, other models should be considered.

背景:与时间相关的分析通常采用泊松模型和考克斯回归模型,可用于防止不朽时间偏差。然而,使用泊松模型需要假设事件发生率随时间变化是恒定的。本研究旨在评估在风险随时间变化的情况下,使用泊松模型来应对不朽时间偏差对估计暴露-结果关系的潜在影响:方法:进行了一项模拟研究。假定生存时间服从 Weibull 分布,并选择 Weibull 参数以确定三种不同的情况:事件的危险性随时间不变、减小或增大。我们还考虑了二分时变暴露,即患者最多只能从未曾暴露变为暴露一次。我们采用泊松模型来估计暴露与结果之间的关联:结果:结果风险随时间发生的微小变化(用Weibull分布的形状参数表示)对暴露-结果关联的估计值有很大影响。当事件风险随着时间的推移而降低或升高时,估计的暴露效应总是低于或大于真实的暴露效应,无论真实的暴露效应如何,情况都是如此。偏差的大小与暴露的发生率和时间呈正相关:结论:从泊松模型中获得的估计值存在偏差,以应对不朽时间。在结果风险随时间变化的情况下,模型应根据结果风险的趋势进行调整。否则,应考虑其他模型。
{"title":"The hazard of using the Poisson model to cope with immortal time bias in the case of time-varying hazard.","authors":"Federico Rea, Gabriella Morabito, Giovanni Corrao, Anna Cantarutti","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02396-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02396-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A time-dependent analysis, usually by means of Poisson and Cox regression models, can be applied to prevent immortal time bias. However, the use of the Poisson model requires the assumption that the event rate is constant over time. This study aims to assess the potential consequences of using the Poisson model to cope with immortal time bias on estimating the exposure-outcome relationship in the case of time-varying risks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A simulation study was carried out. Survival times were assumed to follow a Weibull distribution, and the Weibull parameters were chosen to identify three different scenarios: the hazard of the event is constant, decreases, or increases over time. A dichotomous time-varying exposure in which patients can change at most once from unexposed to exposed was considered. The Poisson model was fitted to estimate the exposure-outcome association.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Small changes in the outcome risk over time (as denoted by the shape parameter of the Weibull distribution) strongly affected the exposure-outcome association estimate. The estimated effect of exposure was always lower and greater than the true exposure effect when the event risk decreases or increases over time, and this was the case irrespective of the true exposure effect. The bias magnitude was positively associated with the prevalence of and time to exposure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Biased estimates were obtained from the Poisson model to cope with immortal time. In settings with a time-varying outcome risk, the model should adjust for the trend in outcome risk. Otherwise, other models should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"272"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549743/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142635859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The optimal approach for retrieving systematic reviews was achieved when searching MEDLINE and Epistemonikos in addition to reference checking: a methodological validation study. 检索系统综述的最佳方法是在检索 MEDLINE 和 Epistemonikos 的同时进行参考文献核对:一项方法论验证研究。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-09 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02384-2
Lena Heinen, Käthe Goossen, Carole Lunny, Julian Hirt, Livia Puljak, Dawid Pieper

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are used to inform clinical practice guidelines and healthcare decision making by synthesising the results of primary studies. Efficiently retrieving as many relevant SRs as possible is challenging with a minimum number of databases, as there is currently no guidance on how to do this optimally. In a previous study, we determined which individual databases contain the most SRs, and which combination of databases retrieved the most SRs. In this study, we aimed to validate those previous results by using a different, larger, and more recent set of SRs.

Methods: We obtained a set of 100 Overviews of Reviews that included a total of 2276 SRs. SR inclusion was assessed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Epistemonikos. The mean inclusion rates (% of included SRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. Features of SRs not identified by the best database combination were reviewed qualitatively.

Results: Inclusion rates of SRs were similar in all three databases (mean inclusion rates in % with 95% confidence intervals: 94.3 [93.9-94.8] for MEDLINE, 94.4 [94.0-94.9] for Embase, and 94.4 [93.9-94.9] for Epistemonikos). Adding reference checking to MEDLINE increased the inclusion rate to 95.5 [95.1-96.0]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (98.1 [97.7-98.5]). Among the 44/2276 SRs not identified by this combination, 34 were published in journals from China, four were other journal publications, three were health agency reports, two were dissertations, and one was a preprint. When discounting the journal publications from China, the SR inclusion rate in the recommended combination (MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and reference checking) was even higher than in the previous study (99.6 vs. 99.2%).

Conclusions: A combination of databases and reference checking was the best approach to searching for biomedical SRs. MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by checking the references of the included studies, was the most efficient and produced the highest recall. However, our results point to the presence of geographical bias, because some publications in journals from China were not identified.

Study registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R5EAS (Open Science Framework).

背景:系统综述(SR)通过综合主要研究的结果,为临床实践指南和医疗决策提供信息。在数据库数量有限的情况下,高效检索尽可能多的相关综述具有挑战性,因为目前还没有关于如何优化检索的指导。在之前的一项研究中,我们确定了哪些单个数据库包含的SR最多,以及哪些数据库组合检索到的SR最多。在本研究中,我们旨在通过使用不同的、更大的、更新近的 SR 集来验证之前的结果:方法:我们获得了一组 100 篇综述,共包含 2276 篇参考文献。我们在 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Epistemonikos 中评估了 SR 的纳入情况。计算了每个数据库的平均收录率(收录SR的百分比)和相应的95%置信区间,以及MEDLINE与其他数据库和参考文献检查的组合。对最佳数据库组合未识别出的文献综述的特征进行了定性审查:所有三个数据库的SR纳入率相似(平均纳入率(%)和95%置信区间:MEDLINE为94.3 [93.9-94.8],Embase为94.4 [94.0-94.9],Epistemonikos为94.4 [93.9-94.9])。在 MEDLINE 中加入参考文献检查后,纳入率提高到 95.5 [95.1-96.0]。MEDLINE 和 Epistemonikos 是两个数据库加参考文献检查的最佳组合(98.1 [97.7-98.5])。在 44/2276 篇参考文献中,有 34 篇未被此组合识别,其中 34 篇发表在中国期刊上,4 篇为其他期刊出版物,3 篇为卫生机构报告,2 篇为学位论文,1 篇为预印本。如果不考虑中国的期刊出版物,推荐的组合(MEDLINE、Epistemonikos 和参考文献检查)的SR收录率甚至高于之前的研究(99.6% 对 99.2%):结论:数据库和参考文献核对相结合是检索生物医学 SR 的最佳方法。MEDLINE和Epistemonikos,再加上对收录研究的参考文献进行核对,是最有效的方法,检索率也最高。不过,我们的研究结果表明存在地域偏差,因为一些发表在中国期刊上的论文没有被发现。研究注册:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R5EAS(开放科学框架)。
{"title":"The optimal approach for retrieving systematic reviews was achieved when searching MEDLINE and Epistemonikos in addition to reference checking: a methodological validation study.","authors":"Lena Heinen, Käthe Goossen, Carole Lunny, Julian Hirt, Livia Puljak, Dawid Pieper","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02384-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02384-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic reviews (SRs) are used to inform clinical practice guidelines and healthcare decision making by synthesising the results of primary studies. Efficiently retrieving as many relevant SRs as possible is challenging with a minimum number of databases, as there is currently no guidance on how to do this optimally. In a previous study, we determined which individual databases contain the most SRs, and which combination of databases retrieved the most SRs. In this study, we aimed to validate those previous results by using a different, larger, and more recent set of SRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We obtained a set of 100 Overviews of Reviews that included a total of 2276 SRs. SR inclusion was assessed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Epistemonikos. The mean inclusion rates (% of included SRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. Features of SRs not identified by the best database combination were reviewed qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inclusion rates of SRs were similar in all three databases (mean inclusion rates in % with 95% confidence intervals: 94.3 [93.9-94.8] for MEDLINE, 94.4 [94.0-94.9] for Embase, and 94.4 [93.9-94.9] for Epistemonikos). Adding reference checking to MEDLINE increased the inclusion rate to 95.5 [95.1-96.0]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (98.1 [97.7-98.5]). Among the 44/2276 SRs not identified by this combination, 34 were published in journals from China, four were other journal publications, three were health agency reports, two were dissertations, and one was a preprint. When discounting the journal publications from China, the SR inclusion rate in the recommended combination (MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and reference checking) was even higher than in the previous study (99.6 vs. 99.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A combination of databases and reference checking was the best approach to searching for biomedical SRs. MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by checking the references of the included studies, was the most efficient and produced the highest recall. However, our results point to the presence of geographical bias, because some publications in journals from China were not identified.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R5EAS (Open Science Framework).</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"271"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549827/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A novel MissForest-based missing values imputation approach with recursive feature elimination in medical applications. 基于 MissForest 的新型缺失值估算方法与医疗应用中的递归特征消除。
IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02392-2
Ya-Han Hu, Ruei-Yan Wu, Yen-Cheng Lin, Ting-Yin Lin

Background: Missing values in datasets present significant challenges for data analysis, particularly in the medical field where data accuracy is crucial for patient diagnosis and treatment. Although MissForest (MF) has demonstrated efficacy in imputation research and recursive feature elimination (RFE) has proven effective in feature selection, the potential for enhancing MF through RFE integration remains unexplored.

Methods: This study introduces a novel imputation method, "recursive feature elimination-MissForest" (RFE-MF), designed to enhance imputation quality by reducing the impact of irrelevant features. A comparative analysis is conducted between RFE-MF and four classical imputation methods: mean/mode, k-nearest neighbors (kNN), multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE), and MF. The comparison is carried out across ten medical datasets containing both numerical and mixed data types. Different missing data rates, ranging from 10 to 50%, are evaluated under the missing completely at random (MCAR) mechanism. The performance of each method is assessed using two evaluation metrics: normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) and predictive fidelity criterion (PFC). Additionally, paired samples t-tests are employed to analyze the statistical significance of differences among the outcomes.

Results: The findings indicate that RFE-MF demonstrates superior performance across the majority of datasets when compared to four classical imputation methods (mean/mode, kNN, MICE, and MF). Notably, RFE-MF consistently outperforms the original MF, irrespective of variable type (numerical or categorical). Mean/mode imputation exhibits consistent performance across various scenarios. Conversely, the efficacy of kNN imputation fluctuates in relation to varying missing data rates.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that RFE-MF holds promise as an effective imputation method for medical datasets, providing a novel approach to addressing missing data challenges in medical applications.

背景:数据集中的缺失值给数据分析带来了巨大挑战,尤其是在医疗领域,数据的准确性对病人的诊断和治疗至关重要。尽管 MissForest(MF)已在归因研究中证明了其有效性,递归特征消除(RFE)也已在特征选择中证明了其有效性,但通过整合 RFE 来增强 MF 的潜力仍有待探索:本研究介绍了一种新的估算方法 "递归特征剔除-MissForest"(RFE-MF),旨在通过减少无关特征的影响来提高估算质量。RFE-MF 与四种经典估算方法进行了比较分析:均值/模式、k-近邻(kNN)、链式方程多重估算(MICE)和 MF。比较在包含数字和混合数据类型的十个医疗数据集上进行。在完全随机缺失(MCAR)机制下,对从 10%到 50%的不同数据缺失率进行了评估。每种方法的性能使用两个评估指标进行评估:归一化均方根误差(NRMSE)和预测保真度标准(PFC)。此外,还采用配对样本 t 检验来分析结果之间差异的统计学意义:结果:研究结果表明,与四种经典估算方法(均值/模式、kNN、MICE 和 MF)相比,RFE-MF 在大多数数据集上都表现出卓越的性能。值得注意的是,无论变量类型(数字或分类)如何,RFE-MF 的性能始终优于原始 MF。平均/模式估算在各种情况下都表现出一致的性能。相反,kNN 归因的功效会随着数据缺失率的变化而波动:这项研究表明,RFE-MF 有望成为医疗数据集的一种有效估算方法,为解决医疗应用中的数据缺失难题提供了一种新方法。
{"title":"A novel MissForest-based missing values imputation approach with recursive feature elimination in medical applications.","authors":"Ya-Han Hu, Ruei-Yan Wu, Yen-Cheng Lin, Ting-Yin Lin","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02392-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12874-024-02392-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Missing values in datasets present significant challenges for data analysis, particularly in the medical field where data accuracy is crucial for patient diagnosis and treatment. Although MissForest (MF) has demonstrated efficacy in imputation research and recursive feature elimination (RFE) has proven effective in feature selection, the potential for enhancing MF through RFE integration remains unexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study introduces a novel imputation method, \"recursive feature elimination-MissForest\" (RFE-MF), designed to enhance imputation quality by reducing the impact of irrelevant features. A comparative analysis is conducted between RFE-MF and four classical imputation methods: mean/mode, k-nearest neighbors (kNN), multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE), and MF. The comparison is carried out across ten medical datasets containing both numerical and mixed data types. Different missing data rates, ranging from 10 to 50%, are evaluated under the missing completely at random (MCAR) mechanism. The performance of each method is assessed using two evaluation metrics: normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) and predictive fidelity criterion (PFC). Additionally, paired samples t-tests are employed to analyze the statistical significance of differences among the outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings indicate that RFE-MF demonstrates superior performance across the majority of datasets when compared to four classical imputation methods (mean/mode, kNN, MICE, and MF). Notably, RFE-MF consistently outperforms the original MF, irrespective of variable type (numerical or categorical). Mean/mode imputation exhibits consistent performance across various scenarios. Conversely, the efficacy of kNN imputation fluctuates in relation to varying missing data rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates that RFE-MF holds promise as an effective imputation method for medical datasets, providing a novel approach to addressing missing data challenges in medical applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"269"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11546113/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142614491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
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