PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8783443

Sample sizes calculations for ordered categorical data.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Whitehead. 1996-05-30. Sample sizes calculations for ordered categorical data.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19960530)15%3A10%3C1065%3A%3Aaid-sim288%3E3.0.co%3B2-9

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice.

Systematic reviews summarize large amounts of information and are more likely than individual trials to describe the true clinical effect of an intervention. Traditional statistical outputs from systematic reviews cannot immediately be applied to clinical practice. The number needed to treat (NNT) has that clinical immediacy. This number can be calculated easily from raw data or from statistical outputs, and the principle involved in its calculation can be applied to different outcomes: treatment efficacy, adverse events (harm), or other end points. The NNT defines the treatment-specific effect of an intervention, and we suggest it as a currency for making decisions about individual patients. Knowing the NNT for different interventions that have the same outcome for the same disorder can help shape individual and institutional practice. Knowing or estimating the number needed to harm is also an important part of the equation. Knowing or estimating an individual patient's risk can, with the NNT, be a guide to the overall or net value of a prophylactic intervention. We advocate an approach to systematic reviews that distills information into, in effect, one number: the NNT. This is simple to remember and directly supports efforts to work with patients to make the best possible clinical decisions for their care.

Data Interpretation, Statistical

Blinded subjective rankings as a method of assessing treatment effect: a large sample example from the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP).

Because many randomized clinical trials study more than one important outcome variable, evaluation of efficacy is often difficult and not completely satisfactory. This paper considers the use of a procedure for endpoint determination described by Follmann et al., that allows raters to integrate subjectively all relevant information about an individual's clinical course into a single univariate assessment. To explore the method's feasibility, we tested the procedure with data from a completed clinical trial, the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). We provided raters blinded to treatment assignment with cards that schematically represent the clinical trajectories of SHEP study participants. The raters independently ranked these trajectories. The method combined ranks across raters to determine a single rank for each study participant; we used a rank procedure to test treatment effect. The major findings were: (i) the raters showed a high level of concordance of rankings; (ii) tests of treatment effect were highly statistically significant; (iii) three statistical methods were effective for implementing the ranking in the large study size case. These methods were use of: (a) scoring rules; (b) incomplete block designs, and (c) categorical ranking.

Data Interpretation, Statistical