Estimation of a Relative Risk Effect Size when Using Continuous Outcomes Data: An Application of Methods in the Prevention of Major Depression and Eating Disorders

Author:

Lee Yong Yi12345ORCID,Le Long Khanh-Dao12345,Stockings Emily A.12345,Hay Phillipa12345,Whiteford Harvey A.12345,Barendregt Jan J.12345,Mihalopoulos Cathrine12345

Affiliation:

1. School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia (YYL, HAW, JJB)

2. Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research (QCMHR), The Park Centre for Mental Health, Wacol, Queensland, Australia (YYL, HAW)

3. Geelong, Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (LK-DL, CM)

4. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia (EAS)

5. School of Medicine and Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, NSW, Australia (PH)

Abstract

Introduction. The raw mean difference (RMD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) are continuous effect size measures that are not readily usable in decision-analytic models of health care interventions. This study compared the predictive performance of 3 methods by which continuous outcomes data collected using psychiatric rating scales can be used to calculate a relative risk (RR) effect size. Methods. Three methods to calculate RR effect sizes from continuous outcomes data are described: the RMD, SMD, and Cochrane conversion methods. Each conversion method was validated using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of interventions for the prevention of depression in youth (aged ≤17 years) and adults (aged ≥18 years) and the prevention of eating disorders in young women (aged ≤21 years). Validation analyses compared predicted RR effect sizes to actual RR effect sizes using scatterplots, correlation coefficients ( r), and simple linear regression. An applied analysis was also conducted to examine the impact of using each conversion method in a cost-effectiveness model. Results. The predictive performances of the RMD and Cochrane conversion methods were strong relative to the SMD conversion method when analyzing RCTs involving depression in adults (RMD: r = 0.89–0.90; Cochrane: r = 0.73; SMD: r = 0.41–0.67) and eating disorders in young women (RMD: r = 0.89; Cochrane: r = 0.96). Moderate predictive performances were observed across the 3 methods when analyzing RCTs involving depression in youth (RMD: r = 0.50; Cochrane: r = 0.47; SMD: r = 0.46–0.46). Negligible differences were observed between the 3 methods when applied to a cost-effectiveness model. Conclusion. The RMD and Cochrane conversion methods are both valid methods for predicting RR effect sizes from continuous outcomes data. However, further validation and refinement are required before being applied more broadly.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3