Suppr超能文献

科恩d值与医生对效应量的看法:一项关于贫血治疗的问卷调查

Cohen's d and physicians' opinion on effect size: a questionnaire on anemia treatment.

作者信息

Gülkesen Kemal Hakan, Bora Feyza, Ilhanli Nevruz, Avsar Esin, Zayim Nese

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Division of Nephrology, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.

出版信息

J Investig Med. 2022 Mar;70(3):814-819. doi: 10.1136/jim-2021-002031. Epub 2021 Nov 5.

Abstract

A well-known effect size (ES) indicator is Cohen's d. Cohen defined d measures of small, medium, and large ES as 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively. This approach has been criticized because practical and clinical importance depends on the context of research. The aim of the study was to examine physicians' perception of ES using iron deficiency anemia treatment as an example and observing the effects of pretreatment level and duration of treatment on the magnitude of ES. We prepared a questionnaire describing four different clinical studies: (1) 1 month of treatment of anemia in a group of patients with a mean hemoglobin (Hb) of 10 g/dL; (2) 3 months of treatment at an Hb level of 10 g/dL; (3) 1 month of treatment at an Hb level of 8 g/dL; and (4) 3 months of treatment at an Hb level of 8 g/dL. In each scenario, respondents were required to evaluate six various levels of Hb improvement as being very small, small, medium, large, or very large effect: 0.1 g/dL, 0.3 g/dL, 0.7 g/dL, 1.1 g/dL, 1.7 g/dL, and 2.8 g/dL. The responses of 35 physicians were evaluated. For 10 mg/dL, the Cohen's d for small, medium, and large ES was 0.5, 0.8, and 1.2 respectively, for 1 month of treatment. In terms of 3 months of treatment, the Cohen's d was 0.8, 1.2, and 2, respectively. Two separate pretreatment Hb levels (8 g/dL and 10 g/dL) demonstrated a minor difference. Determination of ES during the planning phase of studies requires thorough evaluation of specific clinical cases. Our results are divergent from the classic Cohen's d values. Additionally, duration of treatment affects ES perception.

摘要

一个著名的效应量(ES)指标是科恩d值。科恩将小、中、大效应量的d值分别定义为0.2、0.5和0.8。这种方法受到了批评,因为实际和临床重要性取决于研究背景。本研究的目的是以缺铁性贫血治疗为例,考察医生对效应量的认知,并观察治疗前水平和治疗持续时间对效应量大小的影响。我们编制了一份问卷,描述了四项不同的临床研究:(1)对一组平均血红蛋白(Hb)为10 g/dL的患者进行1个月的贫血治疗;(2)在Hb水平为10 g/dL时进行3个月的治疗;(3)在Hb水平为8 g/dL时进行1个月的治疗;(4)在Hb水平为8 g/dL时进行3个月的治疗。在每种情况下,要求受访者将六种不同程度的Hb改善评估为非常小、小、中、大或非常大的效应:0.1 g/dL、0.3 g/dL、0.7 g/dL、1.1 g/dL、1.7 g/dL和2.8 g/dL。对35名医生的回答进行了评估。对于10mg/dL,1个月治疗的小、中、大效应量的科恩d值分别为0.5、0.8和1.2。就3个月的治疗而言,科恩d值分别为0.8、1.2和2。两个不同的治疗前Hb水平(8 g/dL和10 g/dL)显示出微小差异。在研究的规划阶段确定效应量需要对具体临床病例进行全面评估。我们的结果与经典的科恩d值不同。此外,治疗持续时间会影响对效应量的认知。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验