Use of ordinal outcomes in vascular prevention trials: comparison with binary outcomes in published trials

Background and Purpose—Vascular prevention trials mostly count “yes/no” (binary) outcome events, eg, stroke/no stroke. Analysis of ordered categorical vascular events (eg, fatal stroke/nonfatal stroke/no stroke) is clinically relevant and could be more powerful statistically. Although this is not a novel idea in the statistical community, ordinal outcomes have not been applied to stroke prevention trials in the past. Methods—Summary data on stroke, myocardial infarction, combined vascular events, and bleeding were obtained by treatment group from published vascular prevention trials. Data were analyzed using 10 statistical approaches which allow comparison of 2 ordinal or binary treatment groups. The results for each statistical test for each trial were then compared using Friedman 2-way analysis of variance with multiple comparison procedures. Results—Across 85 trials (335 305 subjects) the test results differed substantially so that approaches which used the ordinal nature of stroke events (fatal/nonfatal/no stroke) were more efficient than those which combined the data to form 2 groups (P0.0001). The most efficient tests were bootstrapping the difference in mean rank, Mann–Whitney U test, and ordinal logistic regression; 4- and 5-level data were more efficient still. Similar findings were obtained for myocardial infarction, combined vascular outcomes, and bleeding. The findings were consistent across different types, designs and sizes of trial, and for the different types of intervention. Conclusions—When analyzing vascular events from prevention trials, statistical tests which use ordered categorical data are more efficient and are more likely to yield reliable results than binary tests. This approach gives additional information on treatment effects by severity of event and will allow trials to be smaller. (Stroke. 2008;39:000-000.)

Use of posterior predictive assessments to evaluate model fit in multilevel logistic regression

Assessing the fit of a model is an important final step in any statistical analysis, but this is not straightforward when complex discrete response models are used. Cross validation and posterior predictions have been suggested as methods to aid model criticism. In this paper a comparison is made between four methods of model predictive assessment in the context of a three level logistic regression model for clinical mastitis in dairy cattle; cross validation, a prediction using the full posterior predictive distribution and two “mixed” predictive methods that incorporate higher level random effects simulated from the underlying model distribution. Cross validation is considered a gold standard method but is computationally intensive and thus a comparison is made between posterior predictive assessments and cross validation. The analyses revealed that mixed prediction methods produced results close to cross validation whilst the full posterior predictive assessment gave predictions that were over-optimistic (closer to the observed disease rates) compared with cross validation. A mixed prediction method that simulated random effects from both higher levels was best at identifying the outlying level two (farm-year) units of interest. It is concluded that this mixed prediction method, simulating random effects from both higher levels, is straightforward and may be of value in model criticism of multilevel logistic regression, a technique commonly used for animal health data with a hierarchical structure.

Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical re-analysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials

Background: Most large acute stroke trials have been neutral. Functional outcome is usually analysed using a yes or no answer, e.g. death or dependency vs. independence. We assessed which statistical approaches are most efficient in analysing outcomes from stroke trials. Methods: Individual patient data from acute, rehabilitation and stroke unit trials studying the effects of interventions which alter functional outcome were assessed. Outcomes included modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and ‘3 questions’. Data were analysed using a variety of approaches which compare two treatment groups. The results for each statistical test for each trial were then compared. Results: Data from 55 datasets were obtained (47 trials, 54,173 patients). The test results differed substantially so that approaches which use the ordered nature of functional outcome data (ordinal logistic regression, t-test, robust ranks test, bootstrapping the difference in mean rank) were more efficient statistically than those which collapse the data into 2 groups (chi square) (ANOVA p<0.001). The findings were consistent across different types and sizes of trial and for the different measures of functional outcome. Conclusions: When analysing functional outcome from stroke trials, statistical tests which use the original ordered data are more efficient and more likely to yield reliable results. Suitable approaches included ordinal logistic regression, t-test, and robust ranks test.

Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials

Background and Purpose—Most large acute stroke trials have been neutral. Functional outcome is usually analyzed using a yes or no answer, eg, death or dependency versus independence. We assessed which statistical approaches are most efficient in analyzing outcomes from stroke trials. Methods—Individual patient data from acute, rehabilitation and stroke unit trials studying the effects of interventions which alter functional outcome were assessed. Outcomes included modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and “3 questions”. Data were analyzed using a variety of approaches which compare 2 treatment groups. The results for each statistical test for each trial were then compared. Results—Data from 55 datasets were obtained (47 trials, 54 173 patients). The test results differed substantially so that approaches which use the ordered nature of functional outcome data (ordinal logistic regression, t test, robust ranks test, bootstrapping the difference in mean rank) were more efficient statistically than those which collapse the data into 2 groups (2; ANOVA, P0.001). The findings were consistent across different types and sizes of trial and for the different measures of functional outcome. Conclusions—When analyzing functional outcome from stroke trials, statistical tests which use the original ordered data are more efficient and more likely to yield reliable results. Suitable approaches included ordinal logistic regression, test, and robust ranks test.