Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes: One eye or two?

Anna Karakosta, Maria Vassilaki, Sotiris Plainis, Nazik Hag Elfadl, Miltiadis Tsilimbaris, Joanna Moschandreas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

• Purpose: To investigate the use of analytic approaches for eye-specific outcomes in ophthalmology publications. • Design: A review of analytic approaches used in original research articles published in ophthalmology journals. • Methods: All 161 research articles published in 5 ophthalmology journals in the first 2 months of 2008 were considered. Publications were categorized according to analytic approach: 1 eye selected, both eyes contribute, or per-individual outcome. Studies were considered suboptimal when criteria for eye selection were not provided or when measurements from both eyes were included without interocular correlation being considered. Visual impairment prevalence data were used to illustrate analytic approach choices. • Results: Measurements from both eyes were included in 38% of the 112 studies that used statistical inferential techniques. In 31 (74%), there was no mention of possible correlation. Only 7% used statistical methods appropriate for correlated outcomes. In 35 studies (31%), measurements from 1 eye were selected; 31% of these did not provide selection criteria. In 67%, only univariate tests were used. A review of 47 articles published in 2011 produced similar findings. Characteristics of studies were not found to differ according whether the studies were suboptimal. Using a test appropriate for correlated outcomes resulted in a P value 3.5 times that obtained ignoring the correlation. Conclusions: Between-eye correlation seems not to be assessed commonly in ophthalmology publications, although its knowledge aids the choice of analytic approach when eye-specific variables are of interest. Statistical methods appropriate for correlated ocular outcome data are not being applied widely.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)571-579
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume153
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ophthalmology
Publications
Patient Selection
Vision Disorders
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Karakosta, A., Vassilaki, M., Plainis, S., Elfadl, N. H., Tsilimbaris, M., & Moschandreas, J. (2012). Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes: One eye or two? American Journal of Ophthalmology, 153(3), 571-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.032

Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes : One eye or two? / Karakosta, Anna; Vassilaki, Maria; Plainis, Sotiris; Elfadl, Nazik Hag; Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis; Moschandreas, Joanna.

In: American Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 153, No. 3, 01.03.2012, p. 571-579.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Karakosta, A, Vassilaki, M, Plainis, S, Elfadl, NH, Tsilimbaris, M & Moschandreas, J 2012, 'Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes: One eye or two?', American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 153, no. 3, pp. 571-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.032
Karakosta, Anna ; Vassilaki, Maria ; Plainis, Sotiris ; Elfadl, Nazik Hag ; Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis ; Moschandreas, Joanna. / Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes : One eye or two?. In: American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2012 ; Vol. 153, No. 3. pp. 571-579.
@article{cc9a03261a404664a1537e0752452c26,
title = "Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes: One eye or two?",
abstract = "• Purpose: To investigate the use of analytic approaches for eye-specific outcomes in ophthalmology publications. • Design: A review of analytic approaches used in original research articles published in ophthalmology journals. • Methods: All 161 research articles published in 5 ophthalmology journals in the first 2 months of 2008 were considered. Publications were categorized according to analytic approach: 1 eye selected, both eyes contribute, or per-individual outcome. Studies were considered suboptimal when criteria for eye selection were not provided or when measurements from both eyes were included without interocular correlation being considered. Visual impairment prevalence data were used to illustrate analytic approach choices. • Results: Measurements from both eyes were included in 38{\%} of the 112 studies that used statistical inferential techniques. In 31 (74{\%}), there was no mention of possible correlation. Only 7{\%} used statistical methods appropriate for correlated outcomes. In 35 studies (31{\%}), measurements from 1 eye were selected; 31{\%} of these did not provide selection criteria. In 67{\%}, only univariate tests were used. A review of 47 articles published in 2011 produced similar findings. Characteristics of studies were not found to differ according whether the studies were suboptimal. Using a test appropriate for correlated outcomes resulted in a P value 3.5 times that obtained ignoring the correlation. Conclusions: Between-eye correlation seems not to be assessed commonly in ophthalmology publications, although its knowledge aids the choice of analytic approach when eye-specific variables are of interest. Statistical methods appropriate for correlated ocular outcome data are not being applied widely.",
author = "Anna Karakosta and Maria Vassilaki and Sotiris Plainis and Elfadl, {Nazik Hag} and Miltiadis Tsilimbaris and Joanna Moschandreas",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.032",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "153",
pages = "571--579",
journal = "American Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0002-9394",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes

T2 - One eye or two?

AU - Karakosta, Anna

AU - Vassilaki, Maria

AU - Plainis, Sotiris

AU - Elfadl, Nazik Hag

AU - Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis

AU - Moschandreas, Joanna

PY - 2012/3/1

Y1 - 2012/3/1

N2 - • Purpose: To investigate the use of analytic approaches for eye-specific outcomes in ophthalmology publications. • Design: A review of analytic approaches used in original research articles published in ophthalmology journals. • Methods: All 161 research articles published in 5 ophthalmology journals in the first 2 months of 2008 were considered. Publications were categorized according to analytic approach: 1 eye selected, both eyes contribute, or per-individual outcome. Studies were considered suboptimal when criteria for eye selection were not provided or when measurements from both eyes were included without interocular correlation being considered. Visual impairment prevalence data were used to illustrate analytic approach choices. • Results: Measurements from both eyes were included in 38% of the 112 studies that used statistical inferential techniques. In 31 (74%), there was no mention of possible correlation. Only 7% used statistical methods appropriate for correlated outcomes. In 35 studies (31%), measurements from 1 eye were selected; 31% of these did not provide selection criteria. In 67%, only univariate tests were used. A review of 47 articles published in 2011 produced similar findings. Characteristics of studies were not found to differ according whether the studies were suboptimal. Using a test appropriate for correlated outcomes resulted in a P value 3.5 times that obtained ignoring the correlation. Conclusions: Between-eye correlation seems not to be assessed commonly in ophthalmology publications, although its knowledge aids the choice of analytic approach when eye-specific variables are of interest. Statistical methods appropriate for correlated ocular outcome data are not being applied widely.

AB - • Purpose: To investigate the use of analytic approaches for eye-specific outcomes in ophthalmology publications. • Design: A review of analytic approaches used in original research articles published in ophthalmology journals. • Methods: All 161 research articles published in 5 ophthalmology journals in the first 2 months of 2008 were considered. Publications were categorized according to analytic approach: 1 eye selected, both eyes contribute, or per-individual outcome. Studies were considered suboptimal when criteria for eye selection were not provided or when measurements from both eyes were included without interocular correlation being considered. Visual impairment prevalence data were used to illustrate analytic approach choices. • Results: Measurements from both eyes were included in 38% of the 112 studies that used statistical inferential techniques. In 31 (74%), there was no mention of possible correlation. Only 7% used statistical methods appropriate for correlated outcomes. In 35 studies (31%), measurements from 1 eye were selected; 31% of these did not provide selection criteria. In 67%, only univariate tests were used. A review of 47 articles published in 2011 produced similar findings. Characteristics of studies were not found to differ according whether the studies were suboptimal. Using a test appropriate for correlated outcomes resulted in a P value 3.5 times that obtained ignoring the correlation. Conclusions: Between-eye correlation seems not to be assessed commonly in ophthalmology publications, although its knowledge aids the choice of analytic approach when eye-specific variables are of interest. Statistical methods appropriate for correlated ocular outcome data are not being applied widely.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857446334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84857446334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.032

DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.032

M3 - Article

C2 - 22078901

AN - SCOPUS:84857446334

VL - 153

SP - 571

EP - 579

JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0002-9394

IS - 3

ER -