Advertisement

Biostatistics in Cardiovascular Research with Emphasis on Sex-Related Aspects

  • Marieke M. ter Wee
  • Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1065)

Abstract

Research on sex differences related to cardiovascular dysfunction has become a topic of interest in the last decade. Although scientific research has been carried out since ancient times, we still may struggle with performing scientific research in the best way to achieve the highest quality data and solid conclusions. In this chapter, every step of scientific research is explained: from formulating the research question and hypotheses to analyzing the collected data to interpreting and reporting the results. Several fundamental biostatistical techniques—such as the independent samples t-test, the chi-square test, the log-rank test, and different regression models—are presented. In addition, methods that can deal with variables influencing the association of interest are discussed. All examples are focused on investigating sex differences in cardiac outcomes, but this chapter is written in such a way that it easily translates to other fields of medical research on every disease or health state.

Keywords

Independent samples t-test Chi-square test Log-rank test Regression models Confounding Effect modification 

References

  1. 1.
    Mawad W, Drolet C, Dahdah N, Dallaire FA. Review and critique of the statistical methods used to generate reference values in pediatric echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(1):29–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet. 2008;371(9609):281–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):55–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):W163–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1500–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):W1–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, Vet HC, Terwee CB. The COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20(2):105–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mandelblatt JS, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(9):551–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, Luce BR, Weinstein MC, Gold MR. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. PharmacoEconomics. 1997;11(2):159–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marieke M. ter Wee
    • 1
  • Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations