Saddlepoint approximations

The saddlepoint method provides accurate approximations for the distributions of many test statistics, estimators and for important probabilities arising in various stochastic models. The saddlepoint approximation is a large deviations technique which is substantially more accurate than limiting normal or Edgeworth approximations, especially in presence of very small sample sizes or very small probabilities. The outstanding accuracy of the saddlepoint approximation can be explained by the fact that it has bounded relative error.

What’s the best method? Comparison of different short forms oft he Pathological Narcissism Inventory

Recent research emphasizes the various facets of narcissism. As a consequence, newly developed questionnaires for narcissism have a large number of subscales and items. However, for the daily use in research and practice, short measures are crucial. In this study we compare different short forms of the Pathological Narcissism Questionnaire, a 54 item measure with seven subscales. In different samples (total N>2000) we applied different theoretical models to construct short forms of approximately 20 items. In particular, we compared IRT, item-total correlation, and factor loading based short forms and versions based on content validity and random selection. In all versions the original subscale structure was preserved. Results show that the short forms all have high correlations with the original version. Furthermore, correlations with criterion validation measures were comparable. We conclude that the item number can be reduced substantially without loosing information. Pros and cons of the different reduction methods are discussed.

Do multiple true-false items beat the commonly used one-best-answers questions regarding to the Ottawa Criteria for Good Assessment? Results of a literature review

Background: Multiple True-False-Items (MTF-Items) might offer some advantages compared to one-best-answer-questions (TypeA) as they allow more than one correct answer and may better represent clinical decisions. However, in medical education assessment MTF-Items are seldom used. Summary of Work: With this literature review existing findings on MTF-items and on TypeA were compared along the Ottawa Criteria for Good Assessment, i.e. (1) reproducibility, (2) feasibility, (3) validity, (4) acceptance, (5) educational effect, (6) catalytic effects, and (7) equivalence. We conducted a literature research on ERIC and Google Scholar including papers from the years 1935 to 2014. We used the search terms “multiple true-false”, “true-false”, “true/false”, and “Kprim” combined with “exam”, “test”, and “assessment”. Summary of Results: We included 29 out of 33 studies. Four of them were carried out in the medical field Compared to TypeA, MTF-Items are associated with (1) higher reproducibility (2) lower feasibility (3) similar validity (4) higher acceptance (5) higher educational effect (6) no studies on catalytic effects or (7) equivalence. Discussion and Conclusions: While studies show overall good characteristics of MTF items according to the Ottawa criteria, this type of question seems to be rather seldom used. One reason might be the reported lower feasibility. Overall the literature base is still weak. Furthermore, only 14 % of literature is from the medical domain. Further studies to better understand the characteristics of MTF-Items in the medical domain are warranted. Take-home messages: Overall the literature base is weak and therefore further studies are needed. Existing studies show that: MTF-Items show higher reliability, acceptance and educational effect; MTF-Items are more difficult to produce

Which Anesthesia Regimen Is Best to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in Lung Surgery? A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND One-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery is associated with hypoxia-reoxygenation injury in the deflated and subsequently reventilated lung. Numerous studies have reported volatile anesthesia-induced attenuation of inflammatory responses in such scenarios. If the effect also extends to clinical outcome is yet undetermined. We hypothesized that volatile anesthesia is superior to intravenous anesthesia regarding postoperative complications. METHODS Five centers in Switzerland participated in the randomized controlled trial. Patients scheduled for lung surgery with one-lung ventilation were randomly assigned to one of two parallel arms to receive either propofol or desflurane as general anesthetic. Patients and surgeons were blinded to group allocation. Time to occurrence of the first major complication according to the Clavien-Dindo score was defined as primary (during hospitalization) or secondary (6-month follow-up) endpoint. Cox regression models were used with adjustment for prestratification variables and age. RESULTS Of 767 screened patients, 460 were randomized and analyzed (n = 230 for each arm). Demographics, disease and intraoperative characteristics were comparable in both groups. Incidence of major complications during hospitalization was 16.5% in the propofol and 13.0% in the desflurane groups (hazard ratio for desflurane vs. propofol, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.22; P = 0.24). Incidence of major complications within 6 months from surgery was 40.4% in the propofol and 39.6% in the desflurane groups (hazard ratio for desflurane vs. propofol, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.28; P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial addressing the effect of volatile versus intravenous anesthetics on major complications after lung surgery. No difference between the two anesthesia regimens was evident.