Citation

Wang Y, Yeatts SD, Martin RH, Silbergleit R, Rockswold GL, Barsan WG, Korley FK, Rockswold S, Gajewski BJ. Stat. Med. 2023; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/sim.9877

PMID

37599009

Abstract

The Glasgow outcome scale-extended (GOS-E), an ordinal scale measure, is often selected as the endpoint for clinical trials of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Traditionally, GOS-E is analyzed as a fixed dichotomy with favorable outcome defined as GOS-E ≥ 5 and unfavorable outcome as GOS-E < 5. More recent studies have defined favorable vs unfavorable outcome utilizing a sliding dichotomy of the GOS-E that defines a favorable outcome as better than a subject's predicted prognosis at baseline. Both dichotomous approaches result in loss of statistical and clinical information. To improve on power, Yeatts et al proposed a sliding scoring of the GOS-E as the distance from the cutoff for favorable/unfavorable outcomes, and therefore used more information found in the original GOS-E to estimate the probability of favorable outcome. We used data from a published TBI trial to explore the ramifications to trial operating characteristics by analyzing the sliding scoring of the GOS-E as either dichotomous, continuous, or ordinal. We illustrated a connection between the ordinal data and time-to-event (TTE) data to allow use of Bayesian software that utilizes TTE-based modeling. The simulation results showed that the continuous method with continuity correction offers higher power and lower mean squared error for estimating the probability of favorable outcome compared to the dichotomous method, and similar power but higher precision compared to the ordinal method. Therefore, we recommended that future severe TBI clinical trials consider analyzing the sliding scoring of the GOS-E endpoint as continuous with continuity correction.

Language: en

Keywords

traumatic brain injury; Bayesian design; clinical trials; Glasgow outcome scale-extended; sliding scoring