PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17038184

Joint distribution approaches to simultaneously quantifying benefit and risk.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The benefit-risk ratio has been proposed to measure the tradeoff between benefits and risks of two therapies for a single binary measure of efficacy and a single adverse event. The ratio is calculated from the difference in risk and difference in benefit between therapies. Small sample sizes or expected differences in benefit or risk can lead to no solution or problematic solutions for confidence intervals. METHODS: Alternatively, using the joint distribution of benefit and risk, confidence regions for the differences in risk and benefit can be constructed in the benefit-risk plane. The information in the joint distribution can be summarized by choosing regions of interest in this plane. Using Bayesian methodology provides a very flexible framework for summarizing information in the joint distribution. RESULTS: Data from a National Institute of Child Health & Human Development trial of hydrocortisone illustrate the construction of confidence regions and regions of interest in the benefit-risk plane, where benefit is survival without supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks postmenstrual age, and risk is gastrointestinal perforation. For the subgroup of infants exposed to chorioamnionitis the confidence interval based on the benefit-risk ratio is wide (Benefit-risk ratio: 1.52; 90% confidence interval: 0.23 to 5.25). Choosing regions of appreciable risk and acceptable risk in the benefit-risk plane confirms the uncertainty seen in the wide confidence interval for the benefit-risk ratio--there is a greater than 50% chance of falling into the region of acceptable risk--while visually allowing the uncertainty in risk and benefit to be shown separately. Applying Bayesian methodology, an incremental net health benefit analysis shows there is a 72% chance of having a positive incremental net benefit if hydrocortisone is used in place of placebo if one is willing to incur at most one gastrointestinal perforation for each additional infant that survives without supplemental oxygen. CONCLUSION: If the benefit-risk ratio is presented, the joint distribution of benefit and risk also should be shown. These regions avoid the ambiguity associated with collapsing benefit and risk to a single dimension. Bayesian methods allow even greater flexibility in simultaneously quantifying benefit and risk.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michele L Shaffer, Kristi L Watterberg. 2006-10-12. Joint distribution approaches to simultaneously quantifying benefit and risk.. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-48

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A randomized comparison of dexamethasone 0.15 mg/kg versus 0.6 mg/kg for the treatment of moderate to severe croup.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have shown that dexamethasone is useful in croup, the optimal dosage has not been clarified yet. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of dexamethasone 0.15 mg/kg single dose compared with the recommended dose of 0.6 mg/kg for treatment of hospitalized children with moderate to severe croup. METHOD: Forty-one children aged 6 months to 5 years admitted from March 2001 to October 2003 at the pediatric ward of Hatyai Hospital with moderate to severe croup were recruited for the study. After random allocation, each child received a single intravenous injection of either dexamethasone 0.6 mg/kg (maximum dose 12 mg) or 0.15 mg/kg (maximum dose 3 mg). All children were given a single dose of epinephrine nebulization at the beginning of the study. The croup scores were measured at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h after the dexamethasone injection. RESULTS: One hour following the injection, the mean croup scores were significantly reduced from baseline values in both groups (p<0.01). There was no difference in the mean croup scores between the two groups at any time. Median times to croup scores equal or less than two in both high- and low-dose groups were 8 and 7.9 h, respectively. No patient required intubation or was removed from the study because of a rising croup score after enrollment. There was no significant adverse reaction from dexamethasone treatment in either group. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone 0.15 and 0.6 mg/kg are equally effective in the treatment of moderate to severe croup.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents↗