Evidence and reporting standards in N-of-1 medical studies: a systematic review.

N-of-1 trials, a special case of Single Case Experimental Designs (SCEDs), are prominent in clinical medical research and specifically psychiatry due to the growing significance of precision/personalized medicine. It is imperative that these clinical trials be conducted, and their data analyzed, using the highest standards to guard against threats to validity. This systematic review examined publications of medical N-of-1 trials to examine whether they meet (a) the evidence standards and (b) the criteria for demonstrating evidence of a relation between an independent and an outcome variable per the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for SCEDs.

Accurate models vs. accurate estimates: A simulation study of Bayesian single-case experimental designs.

Although statistical practices to evaluate intervention effects in single-case experimental design (SCEDs) have gained prominence in recent times, models are yet to incorporate and investigate all their analytic complexities. Most of these statistical models incorporate slopes and autocorrelations, both of which contribute to trend in the data. The question that arises is whether in SCED data that show trend, there is indeterminacy between estimating slope and autocorrelation, because both contribute to trend, and the data have a limited number of observations.

Investigating immediacy in multiple-phase-change single-case experimental designs using a Bayesian unknown change-points model.

Immediacy is one of the necessary criteria to show strong evidence of treatment effect in single-case experimental designs (SCEDs). However, with the exception of Natesan and Hedges (2017), no inferential statistical tool has been used to demonstrate or quantify it until now. We investigate and quantify immediacy by treating the change points between the baseline and treatment phases as unknown.