Why Dummy Tables are Smart! A Systematic Approach to Data Analysis for Your M.Sc.

Thesis
Lisa Fredman, Ph.D. Department of Epidemiology, BUSPH CREST Seminar March 17, 2009
1

Outline: 1. Research fundamentals (the basics) 2. Analytic plan in research a. Hypothesis guides plan b. Identify measures for E, D, and covariables c. Descriptive statistics on E, D, and covariables d. Analyses on E-D association i. Crude analyses ii. Evaluate potential confounders iii. Multivariable analyses 3. Present results in tables and text Aim: describe how dummy tables used in Steps 2a-d, 3
2

Research fundamentals:
- systematic investigation of E-D association - analysis follows sequential steps from descriptive analyses -> univariate E-D association -> confounder assessment -> multivariate modeling - document methods and variables - document analytic steps, results at each step, decisions that influence next steps - clear communication throughout - hypothesis - methods - analytic steps - results

Dummy tables
Definition: Dummy tables (aka mock tables) are shells of tables with variable names, SAS names, and statistical measures. Do not include data. Create dummy tables when develop analysis plan. Fill in dummy tables as perform analyses. Use dummy tables to guide analyses record SAS programs used for analyses names of measures used document interim results draft methods and results
4

Example of generic dummy table:

Title: Distribution of key variables (SAS program used to generate results, date) Variable Exposure: Variable (VARNAME) (mean, std, range) Outcome: Variable (VARNAME) (%) Covariables Covar1 (VARNAME) (%) Covar2 (VARNAME) (%) Covar3 (VARNAME) (%)
..

Distribution

Brief notes on results, decisions, next steps

Why are dummy tables smart?

Stay focused on analyses to test YOUR hypothesis. Provides template for systematic steps in your analysis. Internal documentation. Centralized record of analyses, results, decisions. Communication aid.

Dumb things that smart researchers often do:

Analyze associations that look interesting but are tangential to their hypothesis. DONT BE TEMPTED TO DO THIS! Revise analytic variables and not rename vars or record changes. DONT LET YOURSELF FALL INTO THIS TRAP! Dummy tables help you avoid doing these dumb things.

Guide to dummy tables for analyses for epidemiologic study:

Before starting analyses: 1. Write down hypothesis 2. Make dummy table for each stage of analysis 3. Make note to write summary of table, decisions, next steps.

Guide to dummy tables for analyses for epidemiologic study, cont:

Start with 4-5 dummy tables: Descriptive analyses: variable distributions Crude analyses Bivariate analyses Confounder analysis Multivariable analyses

Guide to dummy tables for analyses for epidemiologic study, cont:

While doing analyses, at each step: Fill in dummy table and/or checklist at each stage Make decisions based on analyses at this stage (operationalizing variables, selecting confounders, excluding variables from multivariate model) that will influence next stage Write each decision and rationale for it Proceed to next stage

10

EX: Making Corned Beef with Cabbage dinner

This Epicurious.com recipe: Corned Beef with Cabbage 4 lb corned brisket of beef 3 large carrots, cut into large chunks 6 to 8 small onions 1 teaspoon dry English mustard large sprig fresh thyme and some parsley stalks, tied together 1 cabbage salt and freshly ground pepper Put the brisket into a saucepan with the carrots, onions, mustar and the d herbs. Cover with cold water, and bring gently to a boil. Simmer covered, , for 2 hours. Discard the outer leaves of the cabbage, cut in qua rters and add to the pot. Cook for a further 1 to 2 hours or until the mea and t vegetables are soft and tender. Serve the corned beef in slices, surrounded by the vegetables an d cooking liquid. Serve with lots of floury potatoes and freshly m ade mustard. Irish Traditional Cooking 1995 (reprinted 2005) February 2008 by Darina Allen 2008-02-11 10:37:29.0
11

EX: Making Corned Beef with Cabbage dinner

Generic dummy table aka Shopping List Shopping list for Corned Beef dinner
Ingredients Amount

(Title)
Cost Stop & Shop, or Shaws?

(Variables)
Cabbage Carrots 1 head 3 large

Corned brisket or beef 4 lbs Toadstools

12

6 small

Stop & Shop or Shaws? Need subgroup analyses!

13

EX: Making Corned Beef with Cabbage dinner

Fill in shopping list! Shopping list for Corned Beef dinner

Ingredients Amount

(Title)
Cost Stop & Shop, or Shaws?

(Variables)
Cabbage Carrots 1 head 3 large $1.49/lb

Corned brisket or beef 4 lbs -- Hummell Toadstools 6 small

Either

14

Make notes to improve recipe

This Epicurious.com recipe: Corned Beef with Cabbage 4 lb corned brisket of beef 3 large carrots, cut into large chunks LF: use fewer onions, more carrots 6 to 8 small onions 1 teaspoon dry English mustard large sprig fresh thyme and some parsley stalks, tied together 1 cabbage salt and freshly ground pepper Put the brisket into a saucepan with the carrots, onions, mustar and the d herbs. Cover with cold water, and bring gently to a boil. Simmer covered, , for 2 hours. Discard the outer leaves of the cabbage, cut in qua rters and add to the pot. Cook for a further 1 to 2 hours or until the mea and t vegetables are soft and tender. definitely plan on 2 hrs! LF: Serve the corned beef in slices, surrounded by the vegetables an d cooking liquid. Serve with lots of floury potatoes and freshly m ade mustard. Irish Traditional Cooking 1995 (reprinted 2005) February 2008 by Darina Allen 2008-02-11 10:37:29.0
15

Use less water

Another example: is positive affect associated with better recovery in physical functioning following hip fracture? Main study hypothesis: Elderly hip fracture patients with high positive affect will show recovery in more ADLs, and in more mobility-related ADLs over 2-years following fracture than patients with low positive affect or depression.

16

Dummy tables for Positive Affect study:

Title: Table 1 (manuscript): baseline characteristics of hip fracture sample, by positive affect category (OCESD) (SAS pgm used for results, date)
Total High PA sample (n=xxx) Low PA (n=xxx) Depressed p-value (n=xxx)

Sociodemographic variables Age groups: % (AGE) Sex: % female (RACE) Medical conditions Past stroke: % (V508) Past hip fx: % (V515) Functional status at baseline ADL limitations (0-7): mean, std (KATZ0)
17

More dummy tables:

Age-adjusted mean KATZ ADL score at each interview point, by baseline Positive Affect Category
Positive Affect category (OCESD) High pos. affect Low pos. affect Depressive symptoms Baseline (KATZ0) Mean (se) 2-month (KATZ02) Mean (se) 6-months (KATZ06) Mean (se) 12-months (KATZ12) Mean (se) 18months (KATZ18) Mean (se) 24-months (KATZ24) Mean (se)

18

Filled-in dummy table and summary:

Age-adjusted mean KATZ ADL score at each interview point, by baseline Positive Affect Category (pgm=hipKatz2_age adjusted means, 5/3/06)
Positive Affect category (OCESD) High pos. affect Low pos. affect Depressive symptoms Baseline (KATZ0) Mean (se) 0.72 (0.12) 0.49 (0.20) 1.29 (0.10) 2-month (KATZ02) Mean (se) 3.76 (0.13) 3.82 (0.21) 4.20 (0.11) 6-months (KATZ06) Mean (se) 2.49 (0.16) 2.59 (0.27) 3.05 (0.13) 12-months (KATZ12) Mean (se) 2.03 (0.17) 2.28 (0.28) 2.83 (0.14) 18months (KATZ18) Mean (se) 24-months (KATZ24) Mean (se)

1.98 (0.19) 2.02 (0.18) 2.14 (0.30) 1.91 (0.28) 2.86 (0.16) 2.63 (0.15)

Summary of age-adjusted analyses: Respondents with low positive affect (PA) reported the fewest ADL limitations at baseline, and those with depressive symptoms reported the most. On average, respondents in each affect category reported more ADL limitations at each interview following the fracture. On the KatzADL variable, the high PA group reported the fewest ADL limitations 2months through 18-months post-fracture. However, there were no statistically significant differences between respondents with high and low PA. 19

Dummy table for confounder assessment:

Confounder assessment for Positive Affect_ADLs analyses
Beta coefficient Outcome Beta coefficients for models with individual potential confounders % change Race %change medsum42 %change

OCESD level Age

KATZ ADL measure: model with cesd* time interaction term OCESDlevel 1 OCESDlevel 2

20

Filled-in dummy table for confounder assessment:

Confounder assessment for Positive Affect_ADLs analyses
Beta coefficient Outcome Beta coefficients for models with individual potential confounders % change Race %change medsum42 %change

OCESD level Age

KATZ ADL measure: model with cesd* time interaction term OCESDlevel 1 OCESDlevel 2 -0.3805 -0.2796 -0.354 -0.4252 107.5 65.8 -0.3969 -0.3021 95.9 92.6 -0.3612 -0.2544

105.3

109.9

from hipKatzmix1_mixed models baseline, 5/3/06 Summary: Age and 1 or more medical conditions (medsum42) met the criteria as potential confounders. I will also include race in the multivariable models since it may turn out to be a confounder in the models of the KatzADL outcome. 21

Dummy tables for multivariable analyses:

Predicted mean KATZ ADL score at each interview point, by baseline Positive Affect Category, PROC MIXED results (pgm=hipKatzmix2_mixed models, prelim multivariable models, 5/4/06) Positive Affect category 2-months (KATZ02) (n=352) (OCESD) High positive affect Low positive affect Depressive symptoms Differences and 95% CIs: High vs. low positive affect High positive affect vs. depr.
22

6-months (KATZ06) (n=321) Mean (se)

12-months (KATZ12) (n=306) Mean (se)

18-months (KATZ18) (n=245) Mean (se)

24-months (KATZ24) (n=232) Mean (se)

Mean (se)

Filled-in dummy tables and summary for multivariable analyses:

Predicted mean KATZ ADL score at each interview point, by baseline Positive Affect Category, PROC MIXED results (pgm=hipKatzmix2_mixed models, prelim multivariable models, 5/4/06) Positive Affect category 2-months (n=352) Mean (se) High positive affect Low positive affect Depressive symptoms Differences and 95% CIs: High vs. low positive affect -0.09 (-0.61,0.43) -0.14 (-.68,0.41) -0.34 (-.88,0.20) -0.15 (-0.72,0.42) 0.07 (-0.50,.65) 3.87 (0.14) 3.96 (0.23) 3.97 (0.12) 6-months (n=321) Mean (se) 2.62 (0.14) 2.75 (0.24) 2.94 (0.12) 12-months (n=306) Mean (se) 2.18 (0.14) 2.51 (0.23) 2.75 (0.12) 18-months (n=245) Mean (se) 2.19 (0.15) 2.35 (0.24) 2.88 (0.13) 24-months (n=232) Mean (se) 2.35 (0.16) 2.27 (0.25) 2.70 (0.13)

High positive affect -0.10 -0.32 -0.57 -0.68 -0.35 Summary: vs.the multivariable model, positive affect and followup time were associated with In depr. (-0.46,0.25) (-.68,0.05) (-0.94,-.20) (-1.08, .29) (-0.76,.06) the KatzADL score over time. Mean KatzADL scores were significantly lower (ie, less impaired) in respondents with high positive affect compared to those with depressive symptoms at months 12 and 18; there were no differences between respondents with high and low positive affect. 23

Additional records to supplement dummy tables:

Data memos to co-investigators/self Footers and WORD file names with filename and date created/revised ex: Positive Affect ADLs_datamemo3_050306

24

Conclusion:
Dummy tables are an organizational tool to ensure that data analyses follow hypothesis and are systematically recorded. Provide internal documentation. Link analytic plan, interim results, final tables and manuscript.

Thats why dummy tables are smart!

25