Berend Terluin, Piper Fromy, Andrew Trigg, Caroline B Terwee, Jakob B Bjorner
{"title":"当前状态偏差对最小重要变化估计值的影响:模拟研究。","authors":"Berend Terluin, Piper Fromy, Andrew Trigg, Caroline B Terwee, Jakob B Bjorner","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03763-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The minimal important change (MIC) in a patient-reported outcome measure is often estimated using patient-reported transition ratings as anchor. However, transition ratings are often more heavily weighted by the follow-up state than by the baseline state, a phenomenon known as \"present state bias\" (PSB). It is unknown if and how PSB affects the estimation of MICs using various methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We simulated 3240 samples in which the true MIC was simulated as the mean of individual MICs, and PSB was created by basing transition ratings on a \"weighted change\", differentially weighting baseline and follow-up states. In each sample we estimated MICs based on the following methods: mean change (MC), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, predictive modeling (PM), adjusted predictive modeling (APM), longitudinal item response theory (LIRT), and longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis (LCFA). The latter two MICs were estimated with and without constraints on the transition item slope parameters (LIRT) or factor loadings (LCFA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PSB did not affect MIC estimates based on MC, ROC, and PM but these methods were biased by other factors. PSB caused imprecision in the MIC estimates based on APM, LIRT and LCFA with constraints, if the degree of PSB was substantial. However, the unconstrained LIRT- and LCFA-based MICs recovered the true MIC without bias and with high precision, independent of the degree of PSB.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We recommend the unconstrained LIRT- and LCFA-based MIC methods to estimate anchor-based MICs, irrespective of the degree of PSB. The APM-method is a feasible alternative if PSB is limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11541299/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of present state bias on minimal important change estimates: a simulation study.\",\"authors\":\"Berend Terluin, Piper Fromy, Andrew Trigg, Caroline B Terwee, Jakob B Bjorner\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-024-03763-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The minimal important change (MIC) in a patient-reported outcome measure is often estimated using patient-reported transition ratings as anchor. However, transition ratings are often more heavily weighted by the follow-up state than by the baseline state, a phenomenon known as \\\"present state bias\\\" (PSB). It is unknown if and how PSB affects the estimation of MICs using various methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We simulated 3240 samples in which the true MIC was simulated as the mean of individual MICs, and PSB was created by basing transition ratings on a \\\"weighted change\\\", differentially weighting baseline and follow-up states. In each sample we estimated MICs based on the following methods: mean change (MC), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, predictive modeling (PM), adjusted predictive modeling (APM), longitudinal item response theory (LIRT), and longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis (LCFA). The latter two MICs were estimated with and without constraints on the transition item slope parameters (LIRT) or factor loadings (LCFA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PSB did not affect MIC estimates based on MC, ROC, and PM but these methods were biased by other factors. PSB caused imprecision in the MIC estimates based on APM, LIRT and LCFA with constraints, if the degree of PSB was substantial. However, the unconstrained LIRT- and LCFA-based MICs recovered the true MIC without bias and with high precision, independent of the degree of PSB.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We recommend the unconstrained LIRT- and LCFA-based MIC methods to estimate anchor-based MICs, irrespective of the degree of PSB. The APM-method is a feasible alternative if PSB is limited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11541299/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03763-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03763-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:患者报告的结果测量中的最小重要变化(MIC)通常是以患者报告的转归评分为锚进行估算的。然而,与基线状态相比,随访状态往往对转归评分的影响更大,这种现象被称为 "现况偏倚"(PSB)。目前还不清楚 "现况偏差 "是否以及如何影响使用各种方法对 MIC 的估计:我们模拟了 3240 个样本,其中真实的 MIC 被模拟为单个 MIC 的平均值,而 PSB 则是基于 "加权变化 "的过渡评级,对基线和后续状态进行不同的加权。在每个样本中,我们都根据以下方法估算了 MIC:平均变化(MC)、接受者操作特征(ROC)分析、预测建模(PMM)、调整预测建模(APM)、纵向项目反应理论(LIRT)和纵向确证因子分析(LCFA)。对后两种 MIC 进行了估算,包括对过渡项目斜率参数(LIRT)或因子载荷(LCFA)的限制和不限制:结果:PSB 不影响基于 MC、ROC 和 PM 的 MIC 估计值,但这些方法会受到其他因素的影响。如果 PSB 的程度很大,则基于 APM、LIRT 和 LCFA 的 MIC 估计值就会不精确。然而,基于无约束 LIRT 和 LCFA 的 MIC 恢复了真实的 MIC,没有偏差且精度很高,与 PSB 的程度无关:我们推荐使用无约束 LIRT 和基于 LCFA 的 MIC 方法来估算基于锚的 MIC,而与 PSB 的程度无关。如果 PSB 有限,则 APM 方法是一种可行的替代方法。
Effect of present state bias on minimal important change estimates: a simulation study.
Purpose: The minimal important change (MIC) in a patient-reported outcome measure is often estimated using patient-reported transition ratings as anchor. However, transition ratings are often more heavily weighted by the follow-up state than by the baseline state, a phenomenon known as "present state bias" (PSB). It is unknown if and how PSB affects the estimation of MICs using various methods.
Methods: We simulated 3240 samples in which the true MIC was simulated as the mean of individual MICs, and PSB was created by basing transition ratings on a "weighted change", differentially weighting baseline and follow-up states. In each sample we estimated MICs based on the following methods: mean change (MC), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, predictive modeling (PM), adjusted predictive modeling (APM), longitudinal item response theory (LIRT), and longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis (LCFA). The latter two MICs were estimated with and without constraints on the transition item slope parameters (LIRT) or factor loadings (LCFA).
Results: PSB did not affect MIC estimates based on MC, ROC, and PM but these methods were biased by other factors. PSB caused imprecision in the MIC estimates based on APM, LIRT and LCFA with constraints, if the degree of PSB was substantial. However, the unconstrained LIRT- and LCFA-based MICs recovered the true MIC without bias and with high precision, independent of the degree of PSB.
Conclusion: We recommend the unconstrained LIRT- and LCFA-based MIC methods to estimate anchor-based MICs, irrespective of the degree of PSB. The APM-method is a feasible alternative if PSB is limited.
期刊介绍:
Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences.
Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership.
This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.