Lu Juan, Murray Gordon D, Steyerberg Ewout W, Butcher Isabella, McHugh Gillian S, Lingsma Hester, Mushkudiani Nino, Choi Sung, Maas Andrew I R, Marmarou Anthony
Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
J Neurotrauma. 2008 Jun;25(6):641-51. doi: 10.1089/neu.2007.0510.
The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) is the primary endpoint for efficacy analysis of clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Accurate and consistent assessment of outcome after TBI is essential to the evaluation of treatment results, particularly in the context of multicenter studies and trials. The inconsistent measurement or interobserver variation on GOS outcome, or for that matter, on any outcome scales, may adversely affect the sensitivity to detect treatment effects in clinical trial. The objective of this study is to examine effects of nondifferential misclassification of the widely used five-category GOS outcome scale and in particular to assess the impact of this misclassification on detecting a treatment effect and statistical power. We followed two approaches. First, outcome differences were analyzed before and after correction for misclassification using a dataset of 860 patients with severe brain injury randomly sampled from two TBI trials with known differences in outcome. Second, the effects of misclassification on outcome distribution and statistical power were analyzed in simulation studies on a hypothetical 800-patient dataset. Three potential patterns of nondifferential misclassification (random, upward and downward) on the dichotomous GOS outcome were analyzed, and the power of finding treatments differences was investigated in detail. All three patterns of misclassification reduce the power of detecting the true treatment effect and therefore lead to a reduced estimation of the true efficacy. The magnitude of such influence not only depends on the size of the misclassification, but also on the magnitude of the treatment effect. In conclusion, nondifferential misclassification directly reduces the power of finding the true treatment effect. An awareness of this procedural error and methods to reduce misclassification should be incorporated in TBI clinical trials.
格拉斯哥预后量表(GOS)是创伤性脑损伤(TBI)临床试验疗效分析的主要终点。准确且一致地评估TBI后的预后对于治疗结果的评估至关重要,尤其是在多中心研究和试验的背景下。GOS预后的测量不一致或观察者间差异,或者就此而言,任何预后量表的此类问题,都可能对临床试验中检测治疗效果的敏感性产生不利影响。本研究的目的是检验广泛使用的五类GOS预后量表的无差异错误分类的影响,特别是评估这种错误分类对检测治疗效果和统计效能的影响。我们采用了两种方法。首先,使用从两项已知预后存在差异的TBI试验中随机抽取的860例重度脑损伤患者的数据集,分析错误分类校正前后的预后差异。其次,在一个假设的800例患者数据集的模拟研究中分析错误分类对预后分布和统计效能的影响。分析了二分法GOS预后的三种潜在无差异错误分类模式(随机、向上和向下),并详细研究了发现治疗差异的效能。所有三种错误分类模式都会降低检测真实治疗效果的效能,因此会导致对真实疗效的估计降低。这种影响的程度不仅取决于错误分类的大小,还取决于治疗效果的大小。总之,无差异错误分类直接降低了发现真实治疗效果的效能。TBI临床试验应意识到这种程序错误以及减少错误分类的方法。