A method evaluation decision chart (MEDx chart) for judging method performance.

J O Westgard

PubMed · 10172753

A method evaluation decision chart (MEDx chart) for judging method performance.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To introduce a new graphical tool that improves the process of making decisions about method performance. DATA SOURCES: Scientific literature, mathematical models, and the author's experience. STUDY SELECTION: Not applicable. DATA EXTRACTION: Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS: Relationship to charts of operating specifications (OPSpecs charts) provides guidance for classification of performance as poor, marginal, good, or excellent. CONCLUSION: Objective decisions on the performance of methods can be made quickly and easily with the aid of a Method Evaluation Decision Chart.

Explore related subjects

Bias Clinical Laboratory Techniques Decision Trees Evaluation Studies as Topic Humans Quality Control Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J O Westgard. A method evaluation decision chart (MEDx chart) for judging method performance.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10172753/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 ± 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

PubMed2002

Paleoclimate. Blowing hot and cold.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Bias↗

PubMed2002

Unequal group sizes in randomised trials: guarding against guessing.

We cringe at the pervasive notion that a randomised trial needs to yield equal sample sizes in the comparison groups. Unfortunately, that conceptual misunderstanding can lead to bias by investigators who force equality, especially if by non-scientific means. In simple, unrestricted, randomised trials (analogous to repeated coin-tossing), the sizes of groups should indicate random variation. In other words, some discrepancy between the numbers in the comparison groups would be expected. The appeal of equal group sizes in a simple randomised controlled trial is cosmetic, not scientific. Moreover, other randomisation schemes, termed restricted randomisation, force equality by departing from simple randomisation. Forcing equal group sizes, however, potentially harms the unpredictability of treatment assignments, especially when using permuted-block randomisation in non-double-blinded trials. Diminished unpredictability can allow bias to creep into a trial. Overall, investigators underuse simple randomisation and overuse fixed-block randomisation. For non-double-blinded trials larger than 200 participants, investigators should use simple randomisation more often and accept moderate disparities in group sizes. Such unpredictability reflects the essence of randomness. We endorse the generation of mildly unequal group sizes and encourage an appreciation of such inequalities. For non-double-blinded randomised controlled trials with a sample size of less than 200 overall or within any principal stratum or subgroup, urn randomisation enhances unpredictability compared with blocking. A simpler alternative, our mixed randomisation approach, attains unpredictability within the context of the currently understood simple randomisation and permuted-block methods. Simple randomisation contributes the unpredictability whereas permuted-block randomisation contributes the balance, but avoids the perfect balance that can result in selection bias.

Bias↗