Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1986 Jan 4;292(6512):40-3.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.292.6512.40.

Standards for the use of ordinal scales in clinical trials

Standards for the use of ordinal scales in clinical trials

C R MacKenzie et al. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). .

Abstract

Ordinal scales are frequently used in clinical trials to quantify outcomes which are non-dimensional. They may be regarded as either single state or transition measures based on whether they assess the outcome at a single point in time or directly examine change which has occurred between two points in time. Each has unique structural and operating characteristics, so that different methodological standards for their construction and utilisation are required. All trials employing ordinal scales published in three leading journals between 1980 and 1984 were examined. For both types of scales the individual ranks must be clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and ordered in a hierarchical progression. Further, both types must be able to detect equally both improvement and deterioration. For this to be ensured with the single state scales the population under study must not be clustered at one extreme of the scale at entry into the trial. With the transition scales internal symmetry must be achieved. Strategies for determining the comparisons to be performed should include emphasis on within patient analysis for crossover trials. Concordance between scale scores and the other measures of outcome employed in the trial must be evaluated. Frequent violations were uncovered in the studies reviewed, and it is hoped that the simple rules outlined will prove useful in the planning and evaluation of future trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. N Engl J Med. 1983 Jan 27;308(4):181-6 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 1983 Mar 17;308(11):619-24 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 1983 Mar 24;308(12):669-75 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 1983 Apr 21;308(16):916-21 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 1983 May 12;308(19):1124-9 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources