16 views

Skip to first unread message

Jan 28, 2022, 4:46:12 PMJan 28

to meds...@googlegroups.com

I have some info culled from international registries of non-US rehab

medicine clinical trials

one of the questions of interest is whether a trial included subjects

over a certain age (e.g., 65 or 85); note that I do NOT have info on

the inclusion/exclusion criteria

for most trials I have the total N, but not for all trials

for some trials I have the mean and SD (though for some I only have the

mean) or I have info that can be used to estimate these values (I am

using the formulae suggested in Wan, X, et al. (2014), "Estimating the

sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range

and/or interquartile range", BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14: 135)

If I have the N, the mean and the SD AND if I can assume that the ages

are approximately normally distributed, then answering the over65 or

over85 question is easy. However, I am uncomfortable making this

assumption and I am looking for citations that provide guidance for

either (1) different distributions (esp skewed ones) and/or (2)

truncated distributions but where the truncation point is unknown. If I

could find such cites, I could do a sensitivity analysis re: the assumed

normal distribution answer

So, does any one know of any such citations or have other suggestions?

By the way, I know that I could do a bunch of simulations to get there

but I think this would be more expensive then my clients want to go.

I have received a suggestion that some help re: the normality assumption

might be available via national pop data and I will be looking into this

Best,

Rich

medicine clinical trials

one of the questions of interest is whether a trial included subjects

over a certain age (e.g., 65 or 85); note that I do NOT have info on

the inclusion/exclusion criteria

for most trials I have the total N, but not for all trials

for some trials I have the mean and SD (though for some I only have the

mean) or I have info that can be used to estimate these values (I am

using the formulae suggested in Wan, X, et al. (2014), "Estimating the

sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range

and/or interquartile range", BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14: 135)

If I have the N, the mean and the SD AND if I can assume that the ages

are approximately normally distributed, then answering the over65 or

over85 question is easy. However, I am uncomfortable making this

assumption and I am looking for citations that provide guidance for

either (1) different distributions (esp skewed ones) and/or (2)

truncated distributions but where the truncation point is unknown. If I

could find such cites, I could do a sensitivity analysis re: the assumed

normal distribution answer

So, does any one know of any such citations or have other suggestions?

By the way, I know that I could do a bunch of simulations to get there

but I think this would be more expensive then my clients want to go.

I have received a suggestion that some help re: the normality assumption

might be available via national pop data and I will be looking into this

Best,

Rich

Jan 30, 2022, 12:09:16 PMJan 30

to meds...@googlegroups.com

Age is more likely to be uniform than normal

It is worth classifying age rages and then performing ordinal regression

Classification also had advantage that one can choose ranges; young adult/student range, young worker, older worker, past retirement, very old

> --

> --

> To post a new thread to MedStats, send email to MedS...@googlegroups.com .

> MedStats' home page is http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats .

> Rules: http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats/web/medstats-rules

>

> ---

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MedStats" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to medstats+u...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/medstats/fe206bc9-c469-3883-ab08-9cde224fbec7%40ix.netcom.com.

It is worth classifying age rages and then performing ordinal regression

Classification also had advantage that one can choose ranges; young adult/student range, young worker, older worker, past retirement, very old

> --

> To post a new thread to MedStats, send email to MedS...@googlegroups.com .

> MedStats' home page is http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats .

> Rules: http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats/web/medstats-rules

>

> ---

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MedStats" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to medstats+u...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/medstats/fe206bc9-c469-3883-ab08-9cde224fbec7%40ix.netcom.com.

Jan 30, 2022, 12:51:54 PMJan 30

to meds...@googlegroups.com

sorry for not being clearer - I am only interested in the inclusion of

older people - at least at these ages, the distribution is not close to

being uniform (nor, at least in the few countries I am familiar with, it

is normal) - further, age is not a response variable in any sense; the

question is simply whether, based on only summary stats, I can infer

that people at least 85 (or, at least 65) were included in the trial

older people - at least at these ages, the distribution is not close to

being uniform (nor, at least in the few countries I am familiar with, it

is normal) - further, age is not a response variable in any sense; the

question is simply whether, based on only summary stats, I can infer

that people at least 85 (or, at least 65) were included in the trial

Jan 30, 2022, 2:04:54 PMJan 30

to meds...@googlegroups.com

At 17:51 30/01/2022, Richard Goldstein wrote:

>sorry for not being clearer - I am only interested in the inclusion

>of older people - at least at these ages, the distribution is not

>close to being uniform (nor, at least in the few countries I am

>familiar with, it is normal) - further, age is not a response

>variable in any sense; the question is simply whether, based on only

>summary stats, I can infer that people at least 85 (or, at least 65)

>were included in the trial

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if the only information you have on
>sorry for not being clearer - I am only interested in the inclusion

>of older people - at least at these ages, the distribution is not

>close to being uniform (nor, at least in the few countries I am

>familiar with, it is normal) - further, age is not a response

>variable in any sense; the question is simply whether, based on only

>summary stats, I can infer that people at least 85 (or, at least 65)

>were included in the trial

the age distribution in (some or all) of the trials is the mean and

SD, then you can only determine how likely it is that people >65

or >85 were included by making an assumption about the distribution

of ages to which the mean and SD relate.

To take a silly extreme small example, if the ages were (1, 2, 3, 4,

60, 61, 62, 63), the mean would be 32 and the SD about 31.6. If you

assumed a Normal distribution, you might then conclude that about 15%

of the population were over 65 and about 2.5% of the population was

over 95 - even though, in truth, none were over 65!

That is obviously a stupid extreme example, but far more modest

deviations from a Normal Distribution could lead to you drawing

appreciably incorrect conclusions about the proportion of people if

any!) >65 or >85 on the basis of just mean and SD.

Kind Regards,

John

>--

>--

>To post a new thread to MedStats, send email to MedS...@googlegroups.com .

>MedStats' home page is http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats .

>Rules: http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats/web/medstats-rules

>

>---

>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

>Groups "MedStats" group.

>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

>send an email to medstats+u...@googlegroups.com.

>To view this discussion on the web, visit

>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/medstats/11d3c960-c062-5c73-0cc5-9ead4ce71e5e%40ix.netcom.com.
>--

>To post a new thread to MedStats, send email to MedS...@googlegroups.com .

>MedStats' home page is http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats .

>Rules: http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats/web/medstats-rules

>

>---

>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

>Groups "MedStats" group.

>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

>send an email to medstats+u...@googlegroups.com.

>To view this discussion on the web, visit

John

----------------------------------------------------------------

Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225

Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893

Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: Joh...@mediscience.co.uk

Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK

----------------------------------------------------------------

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu