Observational studyPloS one2026
A practical evaluation of statistical methods for the analysis of patient reported outcomes in an observational pharmaceutical study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-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.
methodsPaired 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.
resultsThe paired difference test demonstrated statistically significant increases in MCS and PCS from baseline to every follow-up, assuming however, data were missing completely at random. Use of the F-ANOVA was limited due to unbalanced data, leading to non-responder bias. While controlling for covariates, the LMMs and wGEEs illustrated a statistically significant increase in MCS and PCS with a steep increase over the first few months, followed by a plateau.
conclusionRelative to paired difference tests, multivariable regression approaches can better handle missing data, control for confounding factors, and provide information on the timing and magnitude of PRO changes. Regression methods therefore facilitate more informative conclusions in observational PRO analyses, and thus provide more detailed evaluations of treatment regimens from the patient's perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.