Assessing non-inferiority for binary matched-pairs data with missing values: a powerful and flexible GEE approach based on the risk difference.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Johannes Hengelbrock, Frank Konietschke, Juliane Herm, Heinrich Audebert, Annette Aigner
{"title":"Assessing non-inferiority for binary matched-pairs data with missing values: a powerful and flexible GEE approach based on the risk difference.","authors":"Johannes Hengelbrock, Frank Konietschke, Juliane Herm, Heinrich Audebert, Annette Aigner","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02497-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical studies often aim to test the non-inferiority of a treatment compared to an alternative intervention with binary matched-pairs data. These studies are often planned with methods for completely observed pairs only. However, if missingness is more frequent than expected or is anticipated in the planning phase, methods are needed that allow the inclusion of partially observed pairs to improve statistical power.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We propose a flexible generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach to estimate confidence intervals for the risk difference, which accommodates partially observed pairs. Using simulated data, we compare this approach to alternative methods for completely observed pairs only and to those that also include pairs with missing observations. Additionally, we reconsider the study sample size calculation by applying these methods to a study with binary matched-pairs setting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In moderate to large sample sizes, the proposed GEE approach performs similarly to alternative methods for completely observed pairs only. It even results in a higher power and narrower interval widths in scenarios with missing data and where missingness follows a missing (completely) at random (MCAR / MAR) mechanism. The GEE approach is also non-inferior to alternative methods, such as multiple imputation or confidence intervals explicitly developed for missing data settings. Reconsidering the sample size calculation for an observational study, our proposed approach leads to a considerably smaller sample size than the alternative methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results indicate that the proposed GEE approach is a powerful alternative to existing methods and can be used for testing non-inferiority, even if the initial sample size calculation was based on a different statistical method. Furthermore, it increases the analytical flexibility by allowing the inclusion of additional covariates, in contrast to other methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"53"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11866877/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02497-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical studies often aim to test the non-inferiority of a treatment compared to an alternative intervention with binary matched-pairs data. These studies are often planned with methods for completely observed pairs only. However, if missingness is more frequent than expected or is anticipated in the planning phase, methods are needed that allow the inclusion of partially observed pairs to improve statistical power.

Methods: We propose a flexible generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach to estimate confidence intervals for the risk difference, which accommodates partially observed pairs. Using simulated data, we compare this approach to alternative methods for completely observed pairs only and to those that also include pairs with missing observations. Additionally, we reconsider the study sample size calculation by applying these methods to a study with binary matched-pairs setting.

Results: In moderate to large sample sizes, the proposed GEE approach performs similarly to alternative methods for completely observed pairs only. It even results in a higher power and narrower interval widths in scenarios with missing data and where missingness follows a missing (completely) at random (MCAR / MAR) mechanism. The GEE approach is also non-inferior to alternative methods, such as multiple imputation or confidence intervals explicitly developed for missing data settings. Reconsidering the sample size calculation for an observational study, our proposed approach leads to a considerably smaller sample size than the alternative methods.

Conclusion: Our results indicate that the proposed GEE approach is a powerful alternative to existing methods and can be used for testing non-inferiority, even if the initial sample size calculation was based on a different statistical method. Furthermore, it increases the analytical flexibility by allowing the inclusion of additional covariates, in contrast to other methods.

评估具有缺失值的二元匹配对数据的非劣效性:基于风险差异的强大而灵活的GEE方法。
背景:临床研究通常旨在用二元配对数据来检验一种治疗与另一种干预相比的非劣效性。这些研究通常只计划使用完全观察对的方法。然而,如果缺失比预期的更频繁,或者在计划阶段预期的更频繁,则需要允许包括部分观察到的对的方法,以提高统计能力。方法:我们提出了一种灵活的广义估计方程(GEE)方法来估计风险差异的置信区间,该方法可以容纳部分观测对。使用模拟数据,我们将这种方法与仅完全观察到的对的替代方法以及那些还包括缺少观测值的对的替代方法进行比较。此外,我们通过将这些方法应用于具有二元匹配对设置的研究,重新考虑了研究样本量的计算。结果:在中等到较大的样本量中,建议的GEE方法仅对完全观察对执行类似于替代方法。它甚至可以在数据丢失的情况下产生更高的功率和更窄的间隔宽度,其中丢失遵循(完全)随机丢失(MCAR / MAR)机制。GEE方法也不逊色于其他方法,例如为缺失数据设置明确开发的多重输入或置信区间。重新考虑观察性研究的样本量计算,我们提出的方法比其他方法的样本量要小得多。结论:我们的研究结果表明,即使初始样本量计算基于不同的统计方法,所提出的GEE方法是现有方法的有力替代,可以用于检验非劣效性。此外,与其他方法相比,它允许包含额外的协变量,从而增加了分析的灵活性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信