Cargando…

Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trial outcomes often involve an ordinal scale of subjective functional assessments but the optimal way to quantify results is not clear. In stroke, the most commonly used scale, the modified Rankin Score (mRS), a range of scores (“Shift”) is proposed as superior to dichotomizatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mandava, Pitchaiah, Krumpelman, Chase S., Shah, Jharna N., White, Donna L., Kent, Thomas A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23861800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067754
_version_ 1782275827631652864
author Mandava, Pitchaiah
Krumpelman, Chase S.
Shah, Jharna N.
White, Donna L.
Kent, Thomas A.
author_facet Mandava, Pitchaiah
Krumpelman, Chase S.
Shah, Jharna N.
White, Donna L.
Kent, Thomas A.
author_sort Mandava, Pitchaiah
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Clinical trial outcomes often involve an ordinal scale of subjective functional assessments but the optimal way to quantify results is not clear. In stroke, the most commonly used scale, the modified Rankin Score (mRS), a range of scores (“Shift”) is proposed as superior to dichotomization because of greater information transfer. The influence of known uncertainties in mRS assessment has not been quantified. We hypothesized that errors caused by uncertainties could be quantified by applying information theory. Using Shannon’s model, we quantified errors of the “Shift” compared to dichotomized outcomes using published distributions of mRS uncertainties and applied this model to clinical trials. METHODS: We identified 35 randomized stroke trials that met inclusion criteria. Each trial’s mRS distribution was multiplied with the noise distribution from published mRS inter-rater variability to generate an error percentage for “shift” and dichotomized cut-points. For the SAINT I neuroprotectant trial, considered positive by “shift” mRS while the larger follow-up SAINT II trial was negative, we recalculated sample size required if classification uncertainty was taken into account. RESULTS: Considering the full mRS range, error rate was 26.1%±5.31 (Mean±SD). Error rates were lower for all dichotomizations tested using cut-points (e.g. mRS 1; 6.8%±2.89; overall p<0.001). Taking errors into account, SAINT I would have required 24% more subjects than were randomized. CONCLUSION: We show when uncertainty in assessments is considered, the lowest error rates are with dichotomization. While using the full range of mRS is conceptually appealing, a gain of information is counter-balanced by a decrease in reliability. The resultant errors need to be considered since sample size may otherwise be underestimated. In principle, we have outlined an approach to error estimation for any condition in which there are uncertainties in outcome assessment. We provide the user with programs to calculate and incorporate errors into sample size estimation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3702531
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37025312013-07-16 Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations Mandava, Pitchaiah Krumpelman, Chase S. Shah, Jharna N. White, Donna L. Kent, Thomas A. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Clinical trial outcomes often involve an ordinal scale of subjective functional assessments but the optimal way to quantify results is not clear. In stroke, the most commonly used scale, the modified Rankin Score (mRS), a range of scores (“Shift”) is proposed as superior to dichotomization because of greater information transfer. The influence of known uncertainties in mRS assessment has not been quantified. We hypothesized that errors caused by uncertainties could be quantified by applying information theory. Using Shannon’s model, we quantified errors of the “Shift” compared to dichotomized outcomes using published distributions of mRS uncertainties and applied this model to clinical trials. METHODS: We identified 35 randomized stroke trials that met inclusion criteria. Each trial’s mRS distribution was multiplied with the noise distribution from published mRS inter-rater variability to generate an error percentage for “shift” and dichotomized cut-points. For the SAINT I neuroprotectant trial, considered positive by “shift” mRS while the larger follow-up SAINT II trial was negative, we recalculated sample size required if classification uncertainty was taken into account. RESULTS: Considering the full mRS range, error rate was 26.1%±5.31 (Mean±SD). Error rates were lower for all dichotomizations tested using cut-points (e.g. mRS 1; 6.8%±2.89; overall p<0.001). Taking errors into account, SAINT I would have required 24% more subjects than were randomized. CONCLUSION: We show when uncertainty in assessments is considered, the lowest error rates are with dichotomization. While using the full range of mRS is conceptually appealing, a gain of information is counter-balanced by a decrease in reliability. The resultant errors need to be considered since sample size may otherwise be underestimated. In principle, we have outlined an approach to error estimation for any condition in which there are uncertainties in outcome assessment. We provide the user with programs to calculate and incorporate errors into sample size estimation. Public Library of Science 2013-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3702531/ /pubmed/23861800 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067754 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mandava, Pitchaiah
Krumpelman, Chase S.
Shah, Jharna N.
White, Donna L.
Kent, Thomas A.
Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations
title Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations
title_full Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations
title_fullStr Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations
title_full_unstemmed Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations
title_short Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations
title_sort quantification of errors in ordinal outcome scales using shannon entropy: effect on sample size calculations
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23861800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067754
work_keys_str_mv AT mandavapitchaiah quantificationoferrorsinordinaloutcomescalesusingshannonentropyeffectonsamplesizecalculations
AT krumpelmanchases quantificationoferrorsinordinaloutcomescalesusingshannonentropyeffectonsamplesizecalculations
AT shahjharnan quantificationoferrorsinordinaloutcomescalesusingshannonentropyeffectonsamplesizecalculations
AT whitedonnal quantificationoferrorsinordinaloutcomescalesusingshannonentropyeffectonsamplesizecalculations
AT kentthomasa quantificationoferrorsinordinaloutcomescalesusingshannonentropyeffectonsamplesizecalculations