ABSTRACT
Objective Studies of epilepsy surgery outcomes are often small and thus underpowered to reach statistically valid conclusions. We hypothesized that ordinal logistic regression would have greater statistical power than binary logistic regression when analyzing epilepsy surgery outcomes.
Methods We reviewed 10 manuscripts included in a recent meta-analysis which found that mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS) predicted better surgical outcome after a stereotactic laser amygdalohippocampectomy (SLAH). We extracted data from 239 patients from eight studies which reported four discrete Engel surgical outcomes after SLAH, stratified by the presence or absence of MTS.
Results The rate of freedom from disabling seizures (Engel I) was 64.3% (110/171) for patients with MTS compared to 44.1% (30/68) without MTS. The statistical power to detect MTS as a predictor for better surgical outcome after a SLAH was 29% using ordinal regression, which was significantly more than the 13% power using binary logistic regression (paired t-test, p<0.001). Only 120 patients are needed to achieve 80% power to detect MTS as a predictor using ordinal regression, compared to 210 patients that are needed to achieve 80% power using binary logistic regression.
Conclusion Ordinal regression should be considered when analyzing ordinal outcomes (such as Engel surgical outcome), especially for datasets with small sample sizes.
Competing Interest Statement
N.P.P. has served as a paid consultant for DIXI Medical USA, who manufactures products used in the workup for epilepsy surgery. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by Emory University in accordance with its conflict-of-interest policies. A.S.D and R.T.K. have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Funding Statement
N.P.P. is supported by the Woodruff Foundation, CURE Epilepsy, and NIH grants K08 NS105929, R01 NS088748, and R21 NS122011. A.S.D. is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH under award number UL1 TR002378 and KL2 TR002381. R.T.K. is supported by R01 GM113243. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We also thank Scott Millis of Wayne State University for help finding relevant references.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study is a meta-analysis of publicly available, published studies that were approved by their local Institutional Review Board (IRB) or its equivalent.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
MATLAB code which can be used to reproduce the analyses and figures described here are posted at https://github.com/AdamSDickey/Ordinal_Regression.
