Methods, applications, interpretations and challenges of interrupted time series (ITS) data: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Interrupted time series (ITS) design involves collecting data across multiple time points before and after the implementation of an intervention to assess the effect of the intervention on an outcome. ITS designs have become increasingly common in recent times with frequent use in assessing impact of evidence implementation interventions. Several statistical methods are currently available for analysing data from ITS designs; however, there is a lack of guidance on which methods are optimal for different data types and on their implications in interpreting results. Our objective is to conduct a scoping review of existing methods for analysing ITS data, to summarise their characteristics and properties, as well as to examine how the results are reported. We also aim to identify gaps and methodological deficiencies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search electronic databases from inception until August 2016 (eg, MEDLINE and JSTOR). Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles and complete the data abstraction. The anticipated outcome will be a summarised description of all the methods that have been used in analysing ITS data in health research, how those methods were applied, their strengths and limitations and the transparency of interpretation/reporting of the results. We will provide summary tables of the characteristics of the included studies. We will also describe the similarities and differences of the various methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study since we are just considering the methods used in the analysis and there will not be identifiable patient data. Results will be disseminated through open access peer-reviewed publications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.280 | 0.365 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".