A note on Youden's J and its cost ratio

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Youden index, the sum of sensitivity and specificity minus one, is an index used for setting optimal thresholds on medical tests.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>When using this index, one implicitly uses decision theory with a ratio of misclassification costs which is equal to one minus the prevalence proportion of the disease. It is doubtful whether this cost ratio truly represents the decision maker's preferences. Moreover, in populations with a different prevalence, a selected threshold is optimal with reference to a different cost ratio.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>The Youden index is not a truly optimal decision rule for setting thresholds because its cost ratio varies with prevalence. Researchers should look into their cost ratio and employ it in a decision theoretic framework to obtain genuinely optimal thresholds.</p

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials : a consensus study

Background: Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews. Method: We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, and the process was repeated. Results: The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for subgroups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based apriori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented. Conclusions: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies

Diagnostic Utility of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised in Two Samples of Survivors of War

The study aimed at examining the diagnostic utility of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) as a screening tool for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in survivors of war. The IES-R was completed by two independent samples that had survived the war in the Balkans: a sample of randomly selected people who had stayed in the area of former conflict (n = 3,313) and a sample of refugees to Western European countries (n = 854). PTSD was diagnosed using the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Prevalence of PTSD was 20.1% in the Balkan sample and 33.1% in the refugee sample. Results revealed that when considering a minimum value of specificity of 0.80, the optimally sensitive cut-off score for screening for PTSD in the Balkan sample was 34. In both the Balkan sample and the refugee sample, this cut-off score provided good values on sensitivity (0.86 and 0.89, respectively) and overall efficiency (0.81 and 0.79, respectively). Further, the kappa coefficients for sensitivity for the cut-off of 34 were 0.80 in both samples. Findings of this study support the clinical utility of the IES-R as a screening tool for PTSD in large-scale research studies and intervention studies if structured diagnostic interviews are regarded as too labor-intensive and too costly

A framework for power analysis using a structural equation modelling procedure

BACKGROUND: This paper demonstrates how structural equation modelling (SEM) can be used as a tool to aid in carrying out power analyses. For many complex multivariate designs that are increasingly being employed, power analyses can be difficult to carry out, because the software available lacks sufficient flexibility. Satorra and Saris developed a method for estimating the power of the likelihood ratio test for structural equation models. Whilst the Satorra and Saris approach is familiar to researchers who use the structural equation modelling approach, it is less well known amongst other researchers. The SEM approach can be equivalent to other multivariate statistical tests, and therefore the Satorra and Saris approach to power analysis can be used. METHODS: The covariance matrix, along with a vector of means, relating to the alternative hypothesis is generated. This represents the hypothesised population effects. A model (representing the null hypothesis) is then tested in a structural equation model, using the population parameters as input. An analysis based on the chi-square of this model can provide estimates of the sample size required for different levels of power to reject the null hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: The SEM based power analysis approach may prove useful for researchers designing research in the health and medical spheres

The personalized advantage index: Translating research on prediction into individualized treatment recommendations. A demonstration

Background: Advances in personalized medicine require the identification of variables that predict differential response to treatments as well as the development and refinement of methods to transform predictive information into actionable recommendations. Objective: To illustrate and test a new method for integrating predictive information to aid in treatment selection, using data from a randomized treatment comparison. Method: Data from a trial of antidepressant medications (N = 104) versus cognitive behavioral therapy (N = 50) for Major Depressive Disorder were used to produce predictions of post-treatment scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) in each of the two treatments for each of the 154 patients. The patient's own data were not used in the models that yielded these predictions. Five pre-randomization variables that predicted differential response (marital status, employment status, life events, comorbid personality disorder, and prior medication trials) were included in regression models, permitting the calculation of each patient's Personalized Advantage Index (PAI), in HRSD units. Results: For 60% of the sample a clinically meaningful advantage (PAI≥3) was predicted for one of the treatments, relative to the other. When these patients were divided into those randomly assigned to their "Optimal" treatment versus those assigned to their "Non-optimal" treatment, outcomes in the former group were superior (d = 0.58, 95% CI .17-1.01). Conclusions: This approach to treatment selection, implemented in the context of two equally effective treatments, yielded effects that, if obtained prospectively, would rival those routinely observed in comparisons of active versus control treatments. © 2014 DeRubeis et al

Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice

Overvaluation of shape and weight in adolescents with anorexia nervosa: does shape concern or weight concern matter more for treatment outcome?

BACKGROUND: Overvaluation of shape and weight is a key diagnostic feature of anorexia nervosa (AN); however, limited research has evaluated the clinical utility of differentiating between weight versus shape concerns. Understanding differences in these constructs may have important implications for AN treatment given the focus on weight regain. This study examined differences in treatment outcome between individuals whose primary concern was weight versus those whose primary concern was shape in a randomized controlled trial of treatment for adolescent AN. METHODS: Data were drawn from a two-site randomized controlled trial that compared family-based treatment and adolescent focused therapy for AN. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Thirty percent of participants presented with primary weight concern (n = 36; defined as endorsing higher Eating Disorder Examination (EDE) Weight Concern than Shape Concern subscale scores); 60 % presented with primary shape concern (n = 72; defined as endorsing higher EDE Shape Concern than Weight Concern scores). There were no significant differences between the two groups in remission status at the end of treatment. Treatment did not moderate the effect of group status on achieving remission. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that treatment outcomes are comparable between adolescents who enter treatment for AN with greater weight concerns and those who enter treatment with greater shape concerns. Therefore, treatment need not be adjusted based on primary weight or primary shape concerns

The differential hormonal milieu of morning versus evening, may have an impact on muscle hypertrophic potential

Substantial gains in muscle strength and hypertrophy are clearly associated with the routine performance of resistance training. What is less evident is the optimal timing of the resistance training stimulus to elicit these significant functional and structural skeletal muscle changes. Therefore, this investigation determined the impact of a single bout of resistance training performed either in the morning or evening upon acute anabolic signalling (insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), myogenic index and differentiation) and catabolic processes (cortisol). Twenty-four male participants (age 21.4±1.9yrs, mass 83.7±13.7kg) with no sustained resistance training experience were allocated to a resistance exercise group (REP). Sixteen of the 24 participants were randomly selected to perform an additional non-exercising control group (CP) protocol. REP performed two bouts of resistance exercise (80% 1RM) in the morning (AM: 0800 hrs) and evening (PM: 1800 hrs), with the sessions separated by a minimum of 72 hours. Venous blood was collected immediately prior to, and 5 min after, each resistance exercise and control sessions. Serum cortisol and IGFBP-3 levels, myogenic index, myotube width, were determined at each sampling period. All data are reported as mean ± SEM, statistical significance was set at P≤0.05. As expected a significant reduction in evening cortisol concentration was observed at pre (AM: 98.4±10.5, PM: 49.8±4.4 ng/ml, P0.05). Timing of resistance training regimen in the evening appears to augment some markers of hypertrophic potential, with elevated IGFBP-3, suppressed cortisol and a superior cellular environment. Further investigation, to further elucidate the time course of peak anabolic signalling in morning vs evening training conditions, are timely

Implications of sperm banking for health-related quality of life up to 1 year after cancer diagnosis.

Sperm banking is recommended for all men diagnosed with cancer where treatment is associated with risk of long-term gonadatoxicity, to offer the opportunity of fatherhood and improved quality of life. However, uptake of sperm banking is lower than expected and little is known about why men refuse. Our aims were to determine: (i) demographic and medical variables associated with decisions about banking and (ii) differences in quality of life between bankers and non-bankers at diagnosis (Time 1 (T1)) and 1 year later (Time 2 (T2))