Why the study?
Does grouped analysis design compared to pairwise analysis design yield comparable estimates of reader variability in QT interval measurements?
Does grouped analysis design compared to pairwise analysis design yield comparable estimates of reader variability in QT interval measurements?
Grouped and pairwise analysis designs provide comparable estimates of reader variability in QT interval measurements for Thorough QT/QTc studies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports either design for QT variability assessment in Thorough QT studies; leaves open generalizability beyond this trial.
BACKGROUND: Two methods of estimating reader variability (RV) in QT measurements between 12 readers were compared. METHODS: Using data from 500 electrocardiograms (ECGs) analyzed twice by 12 readers, we bootstrapped 1000 datasets each for both methods. In grouped analysis design (GAD), the same 40 ECGs were read twice by all readers. In pairwise analysis design (PAD), 40 ECGs analyzed by each reader in a clinical trial were reanalyzed by the same reader (intra-RV) and also by another reader (inter-RV); thus, variability between each pair of readers was estimated using different ECGs. RESULTS: Inter-RV (mean [95% CI]) between pairs of readers by GAD and PAD was 3.9 ms (2.1-5.5 ms) and 4.1 ms (2.6-5.4 ms), respectively, using ANOVA, 0 ms (-0.0 to 0.4 ms), and 0 ms (-0.7 to 0.6 ms), respectively, by actual difference between readers and 7.7 ms (6.2-9.8 ms) and 7.7 ms (6.6-9.1 ms), respectively, by absolute difference between readers. Intra-RV too was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: RV estimates by the grouped- and pairwise analysis designs are comparable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salvi et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: