Alternative approaches to analyzing ventilator-free days, mortality and duration of ventilation in critical care research

Ary Serpa, Michael Bailey, Y. Shehabi, C. Hodgson, Rinaldo Bellomo
{"title":"Alternative approaches to analyzing ventilator-free days, mortality and duration of ventilation in critical care research","authors":"Ary Serpa, Michael Bailey, Y. Shehabi, C. Hodgson, Rinaldo Bellomo","doi":"10.62675/2965-2774.20240246-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: To discuss the strengths and limitations of ventilator-free days and to provide a comprehensive discussion of the different analytic methods for analyzing and interpreting this outcome. Methods: Using simulations, the power of different analytical methods was assessed, namely: quantile (median) regression, cumulative logistic regression, generalized pairwise comparison, conditional approach and truncated approach. Overall, 3,000 simulations of a two-arm trial with n = 300 per arm were computed using a two-sided alternative hypothesis and a type I error rate of α = 0.05. Results: When considering power, median regression did not perform well in studies where the treatment effect was mainly driven by mortality. Median regression performed better in situations with a weak effect on mortality but a strong effect on duration, duration only, and moderate mortality and duration. Cumulative logistic regression was found to produce similar power to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test across all scenarios, being the best strategy for the scenarios of moderate mortality and duration, weak mortality and strong duration, and duration only. Conclusion: In this study, we describe the relative power of new methods for analyzing ventilator-free days in critical care research. Our data provide validation and guidance for the use of the cumulative logistic model, median regression, generalized pairwise comparisons, and the conditional and truncated approach in specific scenarios.","PeriodicalId":72721,"journal":{"name":"Critical care science","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20240246-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: To discuss the strengths and limitations of ventilator-free days and to provide a comprehensive discussion of the different analytic methods for analyzing and interpreting this outcome. Methods: Using simulations, the power of different analytical methods was assessed, namely: quantile (median) regression, cumulative logistic regression, generalized pairwise comparison, conditional approach and truncated approach. Overall, 3,000 simulations of a two-arm trial with n = 300 per arm were computed using a two-sided alternative hypothesis and a type I error rate of α = 0.05. Results: When considering power, median regression did not perform well in studies where the treatment effect was mainly driven by mortality. Median regression performed better in situations with a weak effect on mortality but a strong effect on duration, duration only, and moderate mortality and duration. Cumulative logistic regression was found to produce similar power to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test across all scenarios, being the best strategy for the scenarios of moderate mortality and duration, weak mortality and strong duration, and duration only. Conclusion: In this study, we describe the relative power of new methods for analyzing ventilator-free days in critical care research. Our data provide validation and guidance for the use of the cumulative logistic model, median regression, generalized pairwise comparisons, and the conditional and truncated approach in specific scenarios.
重症监护研究中分析无呼吸机天数、死亡率和通气持续时间的替代方法
摘要 目的:讨论无呼吸机天数的优势和局限性,并全面讨论分析和解释这一结果的不同分析方法。方法:通过模拟,评估不同分析方法的能力,即:量子(中位数)回归、累积逻辑回归、广义配对比较、条件法和截断法。采用双侧备择假设和 α = 0.05 的 I 型错误率,对每臂 n = 300 的双臂试验进行了 3,000 次模拟计算。结果:在考虑功率时,中位回归法在治疗效果主要由死亡率驱动的研究中表现不佳。在死亡率影响较弱,但持续时间、仅持续时间和中度死亡率及持续时间影响较强的情况下,中位回归的效果较好。在所有情况下,累积逻辑回归与 Wilcoxon 秩和检验的功率相似,是中度死亡率和持续时间、弱死亡率和强持续时间以及仅持续时间情况下的最佳策略。结论在这项研究中,我们描述了在重症监护研究中分析无呼吸机天数的新方法的相对功率。我们的数据为在特定情况下使用累积逻辑模型、中位数回归、广义配对比较以及条件和截断方法提供了验证和指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信