A hybrid method in combining treatment effects from matched and unmatched studies

In the biomedical studies, the general data structures have been the matched (paired) and unmatched designs. Recently, many researchers are interested in Meta-Analysis to obtain a better understanding from several clinical data of a medical treatment. The hybrid design, which is combined two data structures, may create the fundamental question for statistical methods and the challenges for statistical inferences. The applied methods are depending on the underlying distribution. If the outcomes are normally distributed, we would use the classic paired and two independent sample T-tests on the matched and unmatched cases. If not, we can apply Wilcoxon signed rank and rank sum test on each case. ^ To assess an overall treatment effect on a hybrid design, we can apply the inverse variance weight method used in Meta-Analysis. On the nonparametric case, we can use a test statistic which is combined on two Wilcoxon test statistics. However, these two test statistics are not in same scale. We propose the Hybrid Test Statistic based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of the treatment effects, which are medians in the same scale.^ To compare the proposed method, we use the classic meta-analysis T-test statistic on the combined the estimates of the treatment effects from two T-test statistics. Theoretically, the efficiency of two unbiased estimators of a parameter is the ratio of their variances. With the concept of Asymptotic Relative Efficiency (ARE) developed by Pitman, we show ARE of the hybrid test statistic relative to classic meta-analysis T-test statistic using the Hodges-Lemann estimators associated with two test statistics.^ From several simulation studies, we calculate the empirical type I error rate and power of the test statistics. The proposed statistic would provide effective tool to evaluate and understand the treatment effect in various public health studies as well as clinical trials.^

Nosocomial infections and their relationship to non-traditional risk factors in a medical intensive care unit

Background. Nosocomial infections are a source of concern for many hospitals in the United States and worldwide. These infections are associated with increased morbidity, mortality and hospital costs. Nosocomial infections occur in ICUs at a rate which is five times greater than those in general wards. Understanding the reasons for the higher rates can ultimately help reduce these infections. The literature has been weak in documenting a direct relationship between nosocomial infections and non-traditional risk factors, such as unit staffing or patient acuity.^ Objective. To examine the relationship, if any, between nosocomial infections and non-traditional risk factors. The potential non-traditional risk factors we studied were the patient acuity (which comprised of the mortality and illness rating of the patient), patient days for patients hospitalized in the ICU, and the patient to nurse ratio.^ Method. We conducted a secondary data analysis on patients hospitalized in the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) of the Memorial Hermann- Texas Medical Center in Houston during the months of March 2008- May 2009. The average monthly values for the patient acuity (mortality and illness Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) scores), patient days for patients hospitalized in the ICU and average patient to nurse ratio were calculated during this time period. Active surveillance of Bloodstream Infections (BSIs), Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) and Ventilator Associated Pneumonias (VAPs) was performed by Infection Control practitioners, who visited the MICU and performed a personal infection record for each patient. Spearman's rank correlation was performed to determine the relationship between these nosocomial infections and the non-traditional risk factors.^ Results. We found weak negative correlations between BSIs and two measures (illness and mortality DRG). We also found a weak negative correlation between UTI and unit staffing (patient to nurse ratio). The strongest positive correlation was found between illness DRG and mortality DRG, validating our methodology.^ Conclusion. From this analysis, we were able to infer that non-traditional risk factors do not appear to play a significant role in transmission of infection in the units we evaluated.^

A new combined endpoint using U-statistic in analysis in clinical trials

Common endpoints can be divided into two categories. One is dichotomous endpoints which take only fixed values (most of the time two values). The other is continuous endpoints which can be any real number between two specified values. Choices of primary endpoints are critical in clinical trials. If we only use dichotomous endpoints, the power could be underestimated. If only continuous endpoints are chosen, we may not obtain expected sample size due to occurrence of some significant clinical events. Combined endpoints are used in clinical trials to give additional power. However, current combined endpoints or composite endpoints in cardiovascular disease clinical trials or most clinical trials are endpoints that combine either dichotomous endpoints (total mortality + total hospitalization), or continuous endpoints (risk score). Our present work applied U-statistic to combine one dichotomous endpoint and one continuous endpoint, which has three different assessments and to calculate the sample size and test the hypothesis to see if there is any treatment effect. It is especially useful when some patients cannot provide the most precise measurement due to medical contraindication or some personal reasons. Results show that this method has greater power then the analysis using continuous endpoints alone. ^