Cargando…
Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods
Often repeated measures data are summarized into pre-post-treatment measurements. Various methods exist in the literature for estimating and testing treatment effect, including ANOVA, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and linear mixed modeling (LMM). Under the first two methods, outcomes can either b...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6290914/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30555734 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2155-6180.1000334 |
_version_ | 1783380175976660992 |
---|---|
author | O'Connell, Nathaniel S. Dai, Lin Jiang, Yunyun Speiser, Jaime L. Ward, Ralph Wei, Wei Carroll, Rachel Gebregziabher, Mulugeta |
author_facet | O'Connell, Nathaniel S. Dai, Lin Jiang, Yunyun Speiser, Jaime L. Ward, Ralph Wei, Wei Carroll, Rachel Gebregziabher, Mulugeta |
author_sort | O'Connell, Nathaniel S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Often repeated measures data are summarized into pre-post-treatment measurements. Various methods exist in the literature for estimating and testing treatment effect, including ANOVA, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and linear mixed modeling (LMM). Under the first two methods, outcomes can either be modeled as the post treatment measurement (ANOVA-POST or ANCOVA-POST), or a change score between pre and post measurements (ANOVA-CHANGE, ANCOVA-CHANGE). In LMM, the outcome is modeled as a vector of responses with or without Kenward-Rogers adjustment. We consider five methods common in the literature, and discuss them in terms of supporting simulations and theoretical derivations of variance. Consistent with existing literature, our results demonstrate that each method leads to unbiased treatment effect estimates, and based on precision of estimates, 95% coverage probability, and power, ANCOVA modeling of either change scores or post-treatment score as the outcome, prove to be the most effective. We further demonstrate each method in terms of a real data example to exemplify comparisons in real clinical context. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6290914 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62909142018-12-12 Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods O'Connell, Nathaniel S. Dai, Lin Jiang, Yunyun Speiser, Jaime L. Ward, Ralph Wei, Wei Carroll, Rachel Gebregziabher, Mulugeta J Biom Biostat Article Often repeated measures data are summarized into pre-post-treatment measurements. Various methods exist in the literature for estimating and testing treatment effect, including ANOVA, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and linear mixed modeling (LMM). Under the first two methods, outcomes can either be modeled as the post treatment measurement (ANOVA-POST or ANCOVA-POST), or a change score between pre and post measurements (ANOVA-CHANGE, ANCOVA-CHANGE). In LMM, the outcome is modeled as a vector of responses with or without Kenward-Rogers adjustment. We consider five methods common in the literature, and discuss them in terms of supporting simulations and theoretical derivations of variance. Consistent with existing literature, our results demonstrate that each method leads to unbiased treatment effect estimates, and based on precision of estimates, 95% coverage probability, and power, ANCOVA modeling of either change scores or post-treatment score as the outcome, prove to be the most effective. We further demonstrate each method in terms of a real data example to exemplify comparisons in real clinical context. 2017-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6290914/ /pubmed/30555734 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2155-6180.1000334 Text en This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Article O'Connell, Nathaniel S. Dai, Lin Jiang, Yunyun Speiser, Jaime L. Ward, Ralph Wei, Wei Carroll, Rachel Gebregziabher, Mulugeta Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods |
title | Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods |
title_full | Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods |
title_fullStr | Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods |
title_short | Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods |
title_sort | methods for analysis of pre-post data in clinical research: a comparison of five common methods |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6290914/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30555734 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2155-6180.1000334 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oconnellnathaniels methodsforanalysisofprepostdatainclinicalresearchacomparisonoffivecommonmethods AT dailin methodsforanalysisofprepostdatainclinicalresearchacomparisonoffivecommonmethods AT jiangyunyun methodsforanalysisofprepostdatainclinicalresearchacomparisonoffivecommonmethods AT speiserjaimel methodsforanalysisofprepostdatainclinicalresearchacomparisonoffivecommonmethods AT wardralph methodsforanalysisofprepostdatainclinicalresearchacomparisonoffivecommonmethods AT weiwei methodsforanalysisofprepostdatainclinicalresearchacomparisonoffivecommonmethods AT carrollrachel methodsforanalysisofprepostdatainclinicalresearchacomparisonoffivecommonmethods AT gebregziabhermulugeta methodsforanalysisofprepostdatainclinicalresearchacomparisonoffivecommonmethods |