Cargando…

Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome

BACKGROUND: Reporting of absolute risk difference (RD) is recommended for clinical and epidemiological prospective studies. In analyses of multicenter studies, adjustment for center is necessary when randomization is stratified by center or when there is large variation in patients outcomes across c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pedroza, Claudia, Thanh Truong, Van Thi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27576307
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0217-0
_version_ 1782451056278503424
author Pedroza, Claudia
Thanh Truong, Van Thi
author_facet Pedroza, Claudia
Thanh Truong, Van Thi
author_sort Pedroza, Claudia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Reporting of absolute risk difference (RD) is recommended for clinical and epidemiological prospective studies. In analyses of multicenter studies, adjustment for center is necessary when randomization is stratified by center or when there is large variation in patients outcomes across centers. While regression methods are used to estimate RD adjusted for baseline predictors and clustering, no formal evaluation of their performance has been previously conducted. METHODS: We performed a simulation study to evaluate 6 regression methods fitted under a generalized estimating equation framework: binomial identity, Poisson identity, Normal identity, log binomial, log Poisson, and logistic regression model. We compared the model estimates to unadjusted estimates. We varied the true response function (identity or log), number of subjects per center, true risk difference, control outcome rate, effect of baseline predictor, and intracenter correlation. We compared the models in terms of convergence, absolute bias and coverage of 95 % confidence intervals for RD. RESULTS: The 6 models performed very similar to each other for the majority of scenarios. However, the log binomial model did not converge for a large portion of the scenarios including a baseline predictor. In scenarios with outcome rate close to the parameter boundary, the binomial and Poisson identity models had the best performance, but differences from other models were negligible. The unadjusted method introduced little bias to the RD estimates, but its coverage was larger than the nominal value in some scenarios with an identity response. Under the log response, coverage from the unadjusted method was well below the nominal value (<80 %) for some scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the use of a binomial or Poisson GEE model with identity link to estimate RD for correlated binary outcome data. If these models fail to run, then either a logistic regression, log Poisson regression, or linear regression GEE model can be used. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0217-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5006411
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50064112016-09-01 Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome Pedroza, Claudia Thanh Truong, Van Thi BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Reporting of absolute risk difference (RD) is recommended for clinical and epidemiological prospective studies. In analyses of multicenter studies, adjustment for center is necessary when randomization is stratified by center or when there is large variation in patients outcomes across centers. While regression methods are used to estimate RD adjusted for baseline predictors and clustering, no formal evaluation of their performance has been previously conducted. METHODS: We performed a simulation study to evaluate 6 regression methods fitted under a generalized estimating equation framework: binomial identity, Poisson identity, Normal identity, log binomial, log Poisson, and logistic regression model. We compared the model estimates to unadjusted estimates. We varied the true response function (identity or log), number of subjects per center, true risk difference, control outcome rate, effect of baseline predictor, and intracenter correlation. We compared the models in terms of convergence, absolute bias and coverage of 95 % confidence intervals for RD. RESULTS: The 6 models performed very similar to each other for the majority of scenarios. However, the log binomial model did not converge for a large portion of the scenarios including a baseline predictor. In scenarios with outcome rate close to the parameter boundary, the binomial and Poisson identity models had the best performance, but differences from other models were negligible. The unadjusted method introduced little bias to the RD estimates, but its coverage was larger than the nominal value in some scenarios with an identity response. Under the log response, coverage from the unadjusted method was well below the nominal value (<80 %) for some scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the use of a binomial or Poisson GEE model with identity link to estimate RD for correlated binary outcome data. If these models fail to run, then either a logistic regression, log Poisson regression, or linear regression GEE model can be used. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0217-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5006411/ /pubmed/27576307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0217-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pedroza, Claudia
Thanh Truong, Van Thi
Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome
title Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome
title_full Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome
title_fullStr Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome
title_full_unstemmed Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome
title_short Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome
title_sort performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27576307
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0217-0
work_keys_str_mv AT pedrozaclaudia performanceofmodelsforestimatingabsoluteriskdifferenceinmulticentertrialswithbinaryoutcome
AT thanhtruongvanthi performanceofmodelsforestimatingabsoluteriskdifferenceinmulticentertrialswithbinaryoutcome