PubMed · 15852089
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Knud Landmark, Asmund Reikvam. 2005-04-21. [Wrong about thiazides].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15852089/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
To provide a comprehensive framework for analysing complex non-normal medical and biological data, we propose a Bayesian approach for a non-linear latent variable model with covariates, and non-ignorable missing data, under the exponential family of distributions. The non-ignorable missing mechanism is defined via a logistic regression model. Based on conjugate prior distributions, full conditional distributions for the implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in simulating observations from the joint posterior distribution are derived. These observations are used in computing the Bayesian estimates, as well as in implementing a path sampling procedure to evaluate the Bayes factor for model comparison. The proposed methods are illustrated using real data from a study on the non-adherence of hypertension patients.
The relation between initial disease status and subsequent change following treatment has attracted great interest in clinical research. However, statisticians have repeatedly warned against correlating/regressing change with baseline due to two methodological concerns known as mathematical coupling and regression to the mean. Oldham's method and Blomqvist's formula are the two most often adopted methods to rectify these problems. The aims of this article are to review briefly the proposed solutions in the statistical and psychological literature, and to clarify the popular misconception that Blomqvist's formula is superior to Oldham's method. We argue that this misconception is due to a failure to recognize that the heterogeneity of individual responses to treatment is a source of regression to the mean in the analysis of the relation between change and initial value. Furthermore, we demonstrate how each method actually answers different research questions, and how confusion arises when this is not always understood.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between complexity of eye drop regime and compliance is not straightforward, i.e. fewer drops may not mean better compliance. We investigated the level of inconvenience different eye drop regimes incurred in comparison with a once-daily (OD) regime for patients experienced with using topical anti-glaucoma medication. METHODS: Patients indicated the level of inconvenience from drop regimes of 1, 2, 3 or 4 times daily on 10-cm visual analogue scales. The score for the OD regime was then compared with the scores for the other regimes using paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: At a significance limit of p = 0.05, five of six subgroups indicated once-a-day drops were significantly more convenient than other regimes. Patients who had used the OD regime considered this difference greater than those who had not. CONCLUSIONS: This study's results offer some pragmatic guidance on choice of therapy and on counselling patients about compliance. We would suggest starting patients on OD drops in preference to alternatives to promote compliance.