Skip to main content
. 2016 Jun 26;18(1):32–47. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxw029

Table 4.

Sensitivity analysis for example on neurocognitive effects of a HAART versus non-HAART drug regimen. 

                         
          Change in CTM total time        
    Inline graphic: Intercept   Inline graphic : Alcohol     Inline graphic : HAART   Inline graphic: HAART Inline graphic Alcohol
Sensitivity parameters Median 95% CI Median 95% CI Median 95% CI Median 95% CI
Inline graphic 5.10 (- 1.21, 11.30) - 0.03 (- 9.71, 9.99) - 12.01 (- 21.30, - 3.15) 6.51 (- 7.25, 21.67)
Inline graphic 3.32 (- 2.70, 9.37) - 1.37 (- 11.12, 8.00) - 7.72 (- 16.32, 0.91) 7.14 (- 6.04, 21.25)
Inline graphic 2.75 (- 3.28, 8.97) - 3.52 (- 13.05, 6.88) - 6.17 (- 15.42, 2.55) 9.95 (- 4.11, 23.11)
Inline graphic 7.40 (0.67, 13.89) - 2.96 (- 12.48, 6.62) - 16.22 (- 25.88, - 6.47) 9.44 (- 4.54, 23.86)
Inline graphic 8.20 (1.06, 15.41) - 1.80 (- 11.98, 8.63) - 18.45 (- 29.16, - 7.58) 8.37 (- 6.36, 23.66)
          Change in CTM total time        
    Inline graphic: Intercept   Inline graphic : Alcohol     Inline graphic : HAART   Inline graphic: HAART Inline graphic Alcohol
Sensitivity parameters Median 95% CI Median 95% CI Median 95% CI Median 95% CI
Inline graphic 7.35 (3.29, 11.28) - 6.37 (- 12.08, - 0.27) - 9.88 (- 16.35, - 3.53) 2.83 (- 6.15, 11.44)
Inline graphic 2.42 (- 3.85, 8.36) - 5.27 (- 13.41, 3.65) - 3.87 (- 12.81, 5.25) 4.56 (- 8.71, 16.34)
Inline graphic 5.26 (- 2.45, 12.64) - 6.57 (- 16.82, 5.00) - 5.46 (- 17.10, 5.92) - 0.99 (- 17.49, 14.59)
Inline graphic 9.89 (3.44, 15.87) - 4.10 (- 13.19, 5.21) - 15.80 (- 24.98, - 5.38) - 0.89 (- 15.37, 11.43)
Inline graphic 11.55 (2.34, 17.54) - 4.75 (- 13.67, 7.58) - 21.10 (- 30.30, - 9.77) 3.13 (- 11.58, 15.20)
          Change in CTM total time        
    Inline graphic: Intercept   Inline graphic : Alcohol     Inline graphic : HAART   Inline graphic: HAART Inline graphic Alcohol
Sensitivity parameters Median 95% CI Median 95% CI Median 95% CI Median 95% CI
Inline graphic - 1.37 (- 3.43, 0.66) - 0.98 (- 3.83, 1.81) 2.43 (- 0.30, 5.15) 2.08 (- 2.00, 6.13)
Inline graphic - 1.96 (- 4.06, 0.10) - 0.98 (- 3.95, 1.86) 3.71 (0.87, 6.63) 2.06 (- 2.03, 6.20)
Inline graphic - 2.45 (- 4.51, - 0.33) - 0.64 (- 3.52, 2.14) 4.26 (1.30, 7.09) 1.91 (- 1.99, 5.92)
Inline graphic - 0.95 (- 3.01, 1.11) - 0.96 (- 3.78, 1.86) 1.25 (- 1.66, 4.16) 2.14 (- 1.93, 6.19)
Inline graphic - 0.62 (- 2.67, 1.42) - 1.09 (- 3.88, 1.72) 0.79 (- 2.18, 3.71) 2.07 (- 1.97, 6.23)

Posterior median and 95% credible intervals of Inline graphic,Inline graphic,Inline graphic,Inline graphic were estimated using the proposed BNP approach applied separately for different combinations of sensitivity parameters and for each outcome. The row, Inline graphic, corresponds to the results under the ignorability assumption. Outcome was change in score from baseline exam to last exam. For Color Trail Making 1 (CTM) and Grooved Pegboard (GPB) tasks, a negative change in time (s) indicates improvement, while for Controlled Word Association Test (COWAT) a positive change (words) indicates improvement. Alcohol (binary) represented use in the past 6 months. Restricted to 120 HIV seropostive women with CD4 cell count Inline graphic cells/Inline graphicL, Inline graphic neurocognitive exams, known drug regimen, known baseline CD4 cell count, and nonoutlying CTM change.