RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Statistical limitations on drawing inferences about proportional recovery
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 19013060
DO 10.1101/19013060
A1 Keith R. Lohse
A1 Rachel Hawe
A1 Sean Dukelow
A1 Stephen H. Scott
YR 2019
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/27/19013060.abstract
AB Background Numerous studies have found large statistical relationships between the amount of recovery and initial impairments in people with stroke. When change scores are regressed onto initial impairments, the resulting slope is approximately ≈0.7for a variety of outcomes. These findings have led to the 70% “proportional recovery rule” and the argument that proportional recovery represents a biological phenomenon. Previous studies of proportional recovery are confounded by statistical limitations that come from regressing change scores onto initial impairments in bounded scales.Objective Our goal is to show that data claimed as evidence for proportional recovery are generally consistent with random patterns of recovery, once statistical limitations are taken into account.Methods Using a pooled dataset of N = 373 Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) upper extremity scores extracted from published literature, we ran simulations to illustrate three main arguments: (1) Mathematical coupling renders the traditional null-hypothesis significance test irrelevant in proportional recovery studies; (2) Proportional recovery is one of many alternative hypotheses; (3) Current evidence claimed in favor of proportional recovery is consistent with uniform random recovery.Results Our simulations show that if all data were included (no exclusion of “non-fitters”) regressing change scores onto initial impairments in a bounded scale would lead to a slope of ≈ 0.5. Similarly, cluster analysis will spuriously identify groups of fitters and non-fitters, leading to a slope for the fitters of ≈ 0.7, when the underlying recovery is random.Conclusions These results cast doubt on the validity of “proportional recovery” as a population level-statistic and a biological phenomenon.Competing Interest StatementThe authors received no funding specifically to pursue this work. SHS is the co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer of Kinarm that commercialize robotic technology for neurological assessment. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Funding StatementThe authors received no funding specifically to pursue this work.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesCurrently, all empirical data underlying the simulations are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. All code for simulations are included in the supplemental appendix.