dc.contributor.author
Zonneveld, Thomas P.
dc.contributor.author
Aigner, Annette
dc.contributor.author
Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
dc.contributor.author
Algra, Ale
dc.contributor.author
Nederkoorn, Paul J.
dc.contributor.author
Grittner, Ulrike
dc.contributor.author
Kruyt, Nyika D.
dc.contributor.author
Siegerink, Bob
dc.date.accessioned
2020-09-02T15:51:39Z
dc.date.available
2020-09-02T15:51:39Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/28080
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-27830
dc.description.abstract
Background
In stroke studies, ordinal logistic regression (OLR) is often used to analyze outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), whereas the non-parametric Mann-Whitney measure of superiority (MWS) has also been suggested. It is unclear how these perform comparatively when confounding adjustment is warranted.
Aims
Our aim is to quantify the performance of OLR and MWS in different confounding variable settings.
Methods
We set up a simulation study with three different scenarios; (1) dichotomous confounding variables, (2) continuous confounding variables, and (3) confounding variable settings mimicking a study on functional outcome after stroke. We compared adjusted ordinal logistic regression (aOLR) and stratified Mann-Whitney measure of superiority (sMWS), and also used propensity scores to stratify the MWS (psMWS). For comparability, OLR estimates were transformed to a MWS. We report bias, the percentage of runs that produced a point estimate deviating by more than 0.05 points (point estimate variation), and the coverage probability.
Results
In scenario 1, there was no bias in both sMWS and aOLR, with similar point estimate variation and coverage probabilities. In scenario 2, sMWS resulted in more bias (0.04 versus 0.00), and higher point estimate variation (41.6% versus 3.3%), whereas coverage probabilities were similar. In scenario 3, there was no bias in both methods, point estimate variation was higher in the sMWS (6.7%) versus aOLR (1.1%), and coverage probabilities were 0.98 (sMWS) versus 0.95 (aOLR). With psMWS, bias remained 0.00, with less point estimate variation (1.5%) and a coverage probability of 0.95.
Conclusions
The bias of both adjustment methods was similar in our stroke simulation scenario, and the higher point estimate variation in the MWS improved with propensity score based stratification. The stratified MWS is a valid alternative for adjusted OLR only when the ratio of number of strata versus number of observations is relatively low, but propensity score based stratification extends the application range of the MWS.
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Computer Simulation
en
dc.subject
Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic
en
dc.subject
Logistic Models
en
dc.subject
Models, Biological
en
dc.subject
Models, Statistical
en
dc.subject
Propensity Score
en
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Confounding adjustment performance of ordinal analysis methods in stroke studies
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.articlenumber
e0231670
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1371/journal.pone.0231670
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
PLOS ONE
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
4
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishername
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
15
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pmid
32298347
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1932-6203