A Neutral Comparison of Statistical Methods for Analyzing Longitudinally Measured Ordinal Outcomes in Rare Diseases.

Arne Bathke, Martin Stefan Geroldinger, Johan Verbeeck, Konstantin Emil Thiel, Geert Molenberghs, Martin Laimer, Georg Zimmermann

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelPeer-reviewed

Abstract

Ordinal data in a repeated measures design of a crossover study for rare diseases usually do not allow for the use of standard parametric methods, and hence, nonparametric methods should be considered instead. However, only limited simulation studies in settings with small sample sizes exist. Therefore, starting from an Epidermolysis Bullosa simplex trial with the above-mentioned design, a rank-based approach using the R package nparLD and different generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) methods were compared impartially in a simulation study. The results revealed that there was not one single best method for this particular design, because a trade-off exists between achieving high power, accounting for period effects, and for missing data. Specifically, nparLD as well as the unmatched GPC approaches do not address crossover aspects, and the univariate GPC variants partly ignore the longitudinal information. The matched GPC approaches, on the other hand, take the crossover effect into account in the sense of incorporating the within-subject association. Overall, the prioritized unmatched GPC method achieved the highest power in the simulation scenarios, although this may be due to the specified prioritization. The rank-based approach yielded good power even at a sample size of N = 6 $N=6$ , whereas the matched GPC method could not control the type I error.

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)e2200236
FachzeitschriftBiometrical Journal
Frühes Online-Datum8 März 2023
DOIs
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 2023

Bibliographische Notiz

© 2023 The Authors. Biometrical Journal published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.

Funding Information:
Georg Zimmermann gratefully acknowledges the support of the WISS 2025 project “IDA‐Lab Salzburg” (20204‐WISS/225/197‐2019 and 20102‐F1901166‐KZP). All authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of the “EBStatMax Demonstration Project” by the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, grant agreement no. 825575).

Funding Information:
Therefore, in the present manuscript, we performed a systematic empirical comparison of the above‐mentioned methods that is informed by clinical considerations as well as the methodological expertise of a group of statisticians with different yet complementary research interests. The authors of this manuscript are statistical and clinical experts who are part of the EBStatMax project consortium (funded by the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases, EU Horizon 2020 grant no. 825575), aimed at developing guidance regarding appropriate statistical methods for analyzing longitudinally collected outcomes based on data from patients with Epidermolysis Bullosa as a motivating case study. Analogously to comparing different interventions to each other in randomized clinical trials, statisticians should not only focus on developing “new” methods and generating the corresponding affirmative simulation evidence, but also conduct systematic comparisons of existing approaches for analyzing data from particular study designs (Boulesteix et al., 2017 ). We follow these “neutral comparison” principles that have been proposed in, for example, Boulesteix et al. ( 2013 , 2018 ) as closely as possible. This is reflected in the simulation setup (see Sections 3 and 4 ) as well as in the interdisciplinary composition of the EBStatMax consortium that comprises statisticians whose respective research interests complement each other well.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Biometrical Journal published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.

Systematik der Wissenschaftszweige 2012

  • 101 Mathematik

Dieses zitieren