Using Previous Longitudinal Group-Randomized Rural Weight-Loss Study Data to Design a Prospective Rural Weight-Loss Trial.

Alexandra R Brown, Byron J Gajewski, Matthew S Mayo, Edward F Ellerbeck, Christie A Befort
{"title":"Using Previous Longitudinal Group-Randomized Rural Weight-Loss Study Data to Design a Prospective Rural Weight-Loss Trial.","authors":"Alexandra R Brown, Byron J Gajewski, Matthew S Mayo, Edward F Ellerbeck, Christie A Befort","doi":"10.23937/2469-5831/1510058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Considerations must be taken when designing group-randomized trials due to the hierarchical structure of the data. Longitudinal group-randomized trials have an added layer of nesting adding more complexity to the study design. Simulation studies have been performed to compare the operating characteristics and validate statistical models for these hierarchical data structures, but many provide simulations from parametric distributions under set assumptions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our manuscript aims to use previous study data to compare two statistical analysis methods in group-randomized trial designs through data-driven simulations for a prospective study design. Creating simulated datasets using existing study data from a previous study allows the existing data to drive the assumptions of the models. The motivation for this simulation study was a potential concern that our proposed longitudinal mixed-effects model could have inflated type I error. We compare the empirical power and type I error rate for our proposed model against a baseline adjusted model at a single time point when modeling a continuous outcome, % weight change at 24 months. The longitudinal model includes three follow-up time points, while the other models the outcome with an adjustment for a baseline measure, weight. The empirical power of the models is calculated and compared for varying effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed that the models had comparable power for the tested effect sizes and type I error rates of 3.09% and 3.87% for the longitudinal and the baseline adjusted model, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results show our proposed longitudinal model does not result in an inflated type I error rate and would be sufficient to use for the future trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":91282,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical biostatistics and biometrics","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448146/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical biostatistics and biometrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5831/1510058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Considerations must be taken when designing group-randomized trials due to the hierarchical structure of the data. Longitudinal group-randomized trials have an added layer of nesting adding more complexity to the study design. Simulation studies have been performed to compare the operating characteristics and validate statistical models for these hierarchical data structures, but many provide simulations from parametric distributions under set assumptions.

Methods: Our manuscript aims to use previous study data to compare two statistical analysis methods in group-randomized trial designs through data-driven simulations for a prospective study design. Creating simulated datasets using existing study data from a previous study allows the existing data to drive the assumptions of the models. The motivation for this simulation study was a potential concern that our proposed longitudinal mixed-effects model could have inflated type I error. We compare the empirical power and type I error rate for our proposed model against a baseline adjusted model at a single time point when modeling a continuous outcome, % weight change at 24 months. The longitudinal model includes three follow-up time points, while the other models the outcome with an adjustment for a baseline measure, weight. The empirical power of the models is calculated and compared for varying effect sizes.

Results: Results showed that the models had comparable power for the tested effect sizes and type I error rates of 3.09% and 3.87% for the longitudinal and the baseline adjusted model, respectively.

Conclusion: These results show our proposed longitudinal model does not result in an inflated type I error rate and would be sufficient to use for the future trial.

利用以往纵向组随机农村减肥研究数据设计一项前瞻性农村减肥试验。
背景:由于数据的层次结构,在设计组随机试验时必须考虑。纵向组随机试验有一个额外的嵌套层,增加了研究设计的复杂性。为了比较这些分层数据结构的运行特性和验证统计模型,已经进行了模拟研究,但许多研究都是在设定的假设下从参数分布进行模拟。方法:本文旨在利用以往的研究数据,通过数据驱动模拟进行前瞻性研究设计,比较组随机试验设计中的两种统计分析方法。使用先前研究的现有研究数据创建模拟数据集允许现有数据驱动模型的假设。这项模拟研究的动机是潜在的担忧,即我们提出的纵向混合效应模型可能有膨胀的I型误差。我们比较了我们提出的模型与基线调整模型在单一时间点的经验功率和I型错误率,当建模连续结果时,24个月的权重变化%。纵向模型包括三个随访时间点,而其他模型的结果与调整基线测量,体重。对于不同的效应大小,计算和比较了模型的经验功率。结果:经纵向调整模型和基线调整模型的ⅰ类错误率分别为3.09%和3.87%。结论:这些结果表明,我们提出的纵向模型不会导致膨胀的I型错误率,并且足以用于未来的试验。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信