Table 5.
Simulation analysis – effect of alternative assumptions for number of weight readings submitted
| Assignment of EDP patients (%) | Assignment of NEDP patients (%) | Proportion of people in A1-A4 with NEDP (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A0 | A1-A4 | A0 | A1-A4 | ||
| 10 | 42.6 | 1.9 | 3.5 | 12.9 | 97.5 |
| 20 | 96.0 | 4.7 | 8.4 | 34.1 | 97.6 |
| 40 | 99.8 | 0.6 | 4.4 | 17.4 | 99.4 |
| 60 | 100.0 | 0.3 | 4.5 | 16.9 | 99.7 |
| 80 | 100.0 | 0.3 | 6.7 | 25.9 | 99.8 |
| 162 (from Table 1) | 100.0 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 23.5 | 100.0 |
| 180 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 22.6 | 100.0 |
Note: Assumes 15% of patients have EDP, 30% of the time, with weights that are uniformly distributed on {0, 1, 2, 3, and 4} modulo 5. Based on 10,000 replications of the simulation experiment