Comparison of Six Statistical Methods for Interrupted time Series Studies: Empirical Evaluation of 190 Published Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Interrupted Time Series (ITS) is a quasi-experimental design commonly used in public health to evaluate the impact of interventions or exposures. Multiple statistical methods are available to analyse data from ITS studies, but no empirical investigation has examined how the different methods compare when applied to real-world datasets. MethodsA random sample of 200 ITS studies identified in a previous methods review were included. Time series data from each of these studies was sought. Each dataset was re-analysed using six statistical methods. Point and confidence interval estimates for level and slope changes, standard errors, p-values and estimates of autocorrelation were compared between methods. ResultsFrom the 200 ITS studies, including 230 time series, 190 datasets were obtained. We found that the choice of statistical method can importantly affect the level and slope change point estimates, their standard errors, width of confidence intervals and p-values. Statistical significance (categorised at the 5% level) often differed across the pairwise comparisons of methods, ranging from 4% to 25% disagreement. Estimates of autocorrelation differed depending on the method used and the length of the series. ConclusionsThe choice of statistical method in ITS studies can lead to substantially different conclusions about the impact of the interruption. Pre-specification of the statistical method is encouraged, and naive conclusions based on statistical significance should be avoided.
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 | 0.380 | 0.719 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".