Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10866021

Testing differences in response trends across a normalized time domain.

Abstract

A two-stage mixed model analysis of repeated measurement calculates participant-specific regression slopes relating change in available measurements to associated assessment times, and then the difference between mean regression slopes in two or more treatment groups is tested for significance against the within-groups variability of the participant-specific regression slopes. It is not necessary that all participants have the same schedule or number of repeated measurements. However, when dropouts are included in an "intent to treat" analysis, the shortened treatment exposures for the dropouts substantially increase variability and reduce power of tests for differences in rates of change. Previous work has suggested that normalizing the time scale to unit length for all participants prior to fitting the individual regression equations materially reduces the power attenuation produced by dropouts. This article reports a more detailed evaluation of the enhanced robustness against dropouts that is achieved by rescaling the time dimension. The robust analysis is recognized to be equivalent to weighting ordinary least squares regression on the original time scale by the duration of treatment for each participant. Slope coefficients calculated across a shortened time span for dropouts are less stable, so they are given less weight in defining the (linear) treatment effects.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J E Overall, C Shivakumar. 1999. Testing differences in response trends across a normalized time domain.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199907)55%3A7%3C857%3A%3Aaid-jclp7%3E3.0.co%3B2-n

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

Likelihood formulation of parent-of-origin effects on segregation analysis, including ascertainment.

We developed a likelihood-based method for testing for parent-of-origin effect in complex diseases. The likelihood formulations model parent-of-origin effect and allow for incorporation of ascertainment, as well as differential male and female ascertainment probabilities. The results based on simulated data indicated that the estimates of parental effect (either maternal or paternal) were biased when ascertainment was ignored or when the wrong ascertainment model was used. The exception was single ascertainment, in which we proved that ignoring ascertainment does not bias the estimation of parental effect, in a simple parent-of-origin model. These results underscore the importance of considering ascertainment models when testing for parent-of-origin effect in complex diseases.

Bias↗