Baseline measurements can be omitted in urethral and anal pressure crossover studies: post hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives
To explore the impact of baseline measurements on variance, the precision of treatment estimate, and sample size in crossover studies using the urethral pressure and anal acoustic reflectometry methodologies.
Material and Methods
This was a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover study of the effect of imipramine on urethral and anal opening pressure. We applied three analysis-of-covariance models that include baseline measurements in the three most common ways and performed sample size calculations for future crossover studies based on the within-subject variance from the three models.
Results
The model which ignores the baseline measurement provided the lowest variance and thus the highest precision of treatment estimate and the smallest sample size whereas the model that incorporates baseline measurements as a change from baseline analysis provided the largest variance, lowest precision of treatment estimate, and largest sample size estimation.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that it is not beneficial to include baseline measurements in crossover studies with urethral pressure and anal acoustic reflectometry.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CC BY. The paper and it's contents belong to the author, and can be used by others when giving appropriate credit to the authors and the creator (DJOG).
How to Cite
References
1. Senn S. Cross-over trials in clinical research. 2nd ed. Chichester ;: JWiley; 2002 2002. 363 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/0470854596
2. Kenward MG, Roger JH. The use of baseline covariates in crossover studies. Biostatistics. 2010;11(1):1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxp046
3. Mehrotra DV. A recommended analysis for 2 × 2 crossover trials with baseline measurements. Pharmaceut Statist. 2014;13(6):376-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.1638
4. Xu R, Mehrotra DV, Shaw PA. Incorporating baseline measurements into the analysis of crossover trials with time-to-event endpoints. Statistics in Medicine. 2018;37(23):3280-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7834
5. Yan Z. The impact of baseline covariates on the efficiency of statistical analyses of crossover designs. Statistics in Medicine. 2013;32(6):956-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5579
6. Jones B, Kenward MG. Design and analysis of cross-over trials. Third edition ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2014 2014. 412 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b17537
7. Klarskov N, Lose G. Urethral pressure reflectometry; a novel technique for simultaneous recording of pressure and cross-sectional area in the female urethra. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2007;26(2):254-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20283
8. Klarskov N, Lose G. Urethral pressure reflectometry vs urethral pressure profilometry in women: a comparative study of reproducibility and accuracy. BJU International. 2007;100(2):351-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06922.x
9. Klarskov N, Scholfield D, Soma K, Darekar A, Mills I, Lose G. Measurement of Urethral Closure Function in Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence. Journal of Urology. 2009;181(6):2628-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.114
10. Mitchell PJ, Klarskov N, Hosker G, Lose G, Kiff ES. Anal acoustic reflectometry: a new technique for assessing anal sphincter function. Colorectal Disease. 2010;12(7):692-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02194.x
11. Hornung BR, Mitchell PJ, Carlson GL, Klarskov N, Lose G, Kiff ES. Comparative study of anal acoustic reflectometry and anal manometry in the assessment of faecal incontinence. British Journal of Surgery. 2012;99(12):1718-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8943
12. Klarskov N, Cerneus D, Sawyer W, Newgreen D, Van Till O, Lose G. The effect of single oral doses of duloxetine, reboxetine, and midodrine on the urethral pressure in healthy female subjects, using urethral pressure reflectometry. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2018;37(1):244-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23282
13. Klarskov N, Van Till O, Sawyer W, Cernus D, Sawyer W. Effect of a 5-HT2c receptor agonist on urethral closure mechanism in healthy women. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2019;38(6):1700-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24045
14. Zinner N, Scholfield D, Soma K, Darekar A, Grant L, Mills I. A Phase 2, 8-Week, Multi-Center, Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel Group Study Evaluating the Efficacy, Tolerability and Safety of [S,S] - Reboxetine (Pnu-165442g) for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women. Journal of Urology. 2008;179(4S):569-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(08)61675-4
15. Kornholt J, Sonne DP, Riis T, Sonne J, Klarskov N. Effect of imipramine on urethral opening pressure: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled crossover study in healthy women. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2019;38(4):1076-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23955
16. Christoffersen T, Kornholt J, Riis T, Sonne J, Sonne DP, Klarskov N. Effect of single doses of citalopram and reboxetine on urethral pressure: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐ and active‐controlled three‐period crossover study in healthy women. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2022;41(6):1482-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24985
17. Collste L, Lindskog M. Phenylpropanolamine in treatment of female stress urinary incontinence Double-blind placebo controlled study in 24 patients. Urology. 1987;30(4):398-403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(87)90314-1
18. Cardozo L, Lange R, Voss S, Beardsworth A, Manning M, Viktrup L, et al. Short- and long-term efficacy and safety of duloxetine in women with predominant stress urinary incontinence. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2010;26(2):253-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990903438295
19. Mitchell PJ, Klarskov N, Telford KJ, Hosker GL, Lose G, Kiff ES. Viscoelastic Assessment of Anal Canal Function Using Acoustic Reflectometry: A Clinically Useful Technique. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2012;55(2):211-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31823b2499