Statistical approach for avoiding pseudoreplication and increasing power in wound‐healing studies

Many animal wound‐healing models measure the progression of healing over time, resulting in counts of fully healed wounds from different treatments at several time points. Data from these models are usually analyzed using contingency table methods. However, pooling data from multiple animals without appropriate correction for animal‐to‐animal variability results in pseudoreplication. Kaiser and colleagues, overcame pseudoreplication by adjusting the estimate of healing variation to account for the interanimal covariance. This solution nevertheless is limited by the ability to accurately estimate the adjustment factor due to the small number of animals used. An improved method is described that both overcomes pseudoreplication and increases power. It involves estimating the time for half of the wounds within each animal to be completely healed (TCH50), rather than a pooled estimate for all animals (HT50). Subsequent ANOVA testing of the individual TCH50 values, using a model with fixed treatments and random animals, generates unbiased estimates of treatment means and differences between means, and accurate p‐values for these differences and for the overall model. This method has sufficient power to detect treatment differences with fewer animals. Furthermore, it is fully applicable to analyses of results from human trials having similar data organization.

[1]  B. Everitt,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[2]  W. Eaglstein,et al.  New methods for assessing epidermal wound healing: the effects of triamcinolone acetonide and polyethelene film occlusion. , 1978, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[3]  Clay Helberg,et al.  Pitfalls of Data Analysis , 1996 .

[4]  W. Eaglstein,et al.  IL-1 as a potent inducer of wound re-epithelization. , 1991, Progress in clinical and biological research.

[5]  A. Barbul Clinical And Experimental Approaches To Dermal And Epidermal Repair: NORMAL AND CHRONIC WOUNDS , 1991 .

[6]  J. Zar Testing for goodness of fit , 1996 .

[7]  M. Robson An in Vivo Comparison of Topical Agents on Wound Repair by Laura L. Bennett, M.D., Richard S. Rosenblum, M.D., Cathy Perlov, B.S.N., Jeffrey M. Davidson, Ph.D., Ronald M. Barton, M.D. Lillian B. Nanney, Ph.D. , 2001 .

[8]  Ilya M. Sobol,et al.  A Primer for the Monte Carlo Method , 1994 .

[9]  P. Velander,et al.  Safety Evaluation of Topically Applied Amitriptyline in Porcine Full-Thickness Wounds , 2007, Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

[10]  C. Baum,et al.  Normal Cutaneous Wound Healing: Clinical Correlation with Cellular and Molecular Events , 2005, Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.].

[11]  F. Gottrup,et al.  Models for use in wound healing research: A survey focusing on in vitro and in vivo adult soft tissue , 2000, Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society.

[12]  S. Davis,et al.  Effect of ultraviolet radiation—induced inflammation on epidermal wound healing , 1995, Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society.

[13]  S. Hurlbert Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments , 1984 .

[14]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[15]  E B Wilson,et al.  On Contingency Tables. , 1942, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  J. Davidson,et al.  An in vivo comparison of topical agents on wound repair. , 2001, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[17]  R. A. FISHER,et al.  The Design and Analysis of Factorial Experiments , 1938, Nature.