A practical evaluation of statistical methods for the analysis of patient reported outcomes in an observational pharmaceutical study
Lucy R. Williams, Andrea Marongiu, Filippos T. Filippidis, Marion Heinzkill, Anna R. van Troostenburg, Richard Haubrich, Heribert Ramroth, Daniel Bekalo, Daniel Bekalo, Eugene Demidenko, Eugene Demidenko

TL;DR
This paper compares different statistical methods for analyzing patient-reported outcomes in HIV studies to find better ways to understand treatment effects.
Contribution
The study evaluates multivariable regression approaches as superior for handling missing data and providing detailed insights in observational PRO analyses.
Findings
Paired difference tests showed significant increases in PRO scores but assumed missing data were random.
LMMs and wGEEs revealed significant increases in PRO scores with a steep initial rise followed by a plateau.
Multivariable regression approaches outperformed simplistic methods in handling missing data and controlling for confounding factors.
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a unique opportunity to tailor clinical care to patients’ needs. Observational pharmaceutical industry analyses of PROs in the HIV field often utilise simplistic pairwise comparisons of pre-defined follow-up periods to baseline, making inappropriate missing data assumptions and yielding limited information on the nature of the change in PRO. Our aim was to evaluate different statistical approaches for PRO analyses. Paired difference tests, Friedman’s ANOVAs (F-ANOVA), linear mixed models (LMMs) and weighted generalised estimating equations (wGEEs) were applied to the analysis of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) mental component score (MCS) and physical component score (PCS) from treatment-naïve patients in an observational cohort of people living with HIV. Changes in MCS and PCS were assessed to compare the benefits of each approach. The paired…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
