A new longitudinal statistical approach was compared to the classical methods currently used to analyze health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data. The comparison was made using data in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Three hundred forty-two patients from the PRODIGE4/ACCORD 11 study were randomly assigned to FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine regimens. HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30. The classical analysis uses a linear mixed model (LMM), considering an HRQoL score as a good representation of the true value of the HRQoL, following EORTC recommendations. In contrast, built on the item response theory (IRT), our approach considered HRQoL as a latent variable directly estimated from the raw data. For polytomous items, we extended the partial credit model to a longitudinal analysis (longitudinal partial credit model [LPCM]), thereby modeling the latent trait as a function of time and other covariates.
Both models gave the same conclusions on 11 of 15 HRQoL dimensions. HRQoL evolution was similar between the 2 treatment arms, except for the symptoms of pain. Indeed, regarding the LPCM, pain perception was significantly less important in the FOLFIRINOX arm than in the gemcitabine arm. For most of the scales, HRQoL changes over time, and no difference was found between treatments in terms of HRQoL.
The use of LMM to study the HRQoL score does not seem appropriate. It is an easy-to-use model, but the basic statistical assumptions do not check. Our IRT model may be more complex but shows the same qualities and gives similar results. It has the additional advantage of being more precise and suitable because of its direct use of raw data.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2015.
All research outputs
#23,306,740
of 29,353,077 outputs
Outputs from Medical Decision Making
#1,442
of 1,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,102
of 407,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Decision Making
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,353,077 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
