RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Statistical considerations for drawing conclusions about recovery JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 19013060 DO 10.1101/19013060 A1 Keith R. Lohse A1 Rachel L. Hawe A1 Sean P. Dukelow A1 Stephen H. Scott YR 2020 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/27/19013060.abstract AB Background Numerous studies have found associations when change scores are regressed onto initial impairments, slopes ≈ 0.7, in people with stroke. However, there are important statistical considerations that limit the conclusions we can draw about recovery from these studies.Objective To provide an accessible “check-list” of conceptual and analytical issues on longitudinal measures of stroke recovery. Proportional recovery is an illustrative example, but these considerations apply broadly to studies of change over time.Methods Using a pooled dataset of N = 373 Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) upper extremity scores, we ran simulations to illustrate three considerations: (1) change scores can be problematic, especially when regressed onto baseline values; (2) the relative value of null-hypothesis significance tests and alternative hypotheses; and (3) measurement issues can create the illusion of “proportionality”, while other steps augment this problem.Results Our simulations highlight several limitations of common methods for analyzing recovery over time. Critically, we find that random recovery (in the population) leads to similar group-level statistics (regression slopes) and individual-level classifications (into fitters and non-fitters) that have been claimed as evidence for the proportional recovery rule.Conclusions Our results highlight that one cannot identify whether proportional recovery is true or not based on commonly used methods. We illustrate how these techniques (regressing change scores onto baseline values), measurement tools (bounded scales), and post-hoc classifications (e.g., “fitters” or “responders”) can create spurious results. Going forward the field needs to carefully consider the influence of these factors on how we measure, analyze, and conceptualize recovery.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.