临床研究前后数据分析的方法:五种常用方法的比较。

Nathaniel S O'Connell, Lin Dai, Yunyun Jiang, Jaime L Speiser, Ralph Ward, Wei Wei, Rachel Carroll, Mulugeta Gebregziabher
{"title":"临床研究前后数据分析的方法:五种常用方法的比较。","authors":"Nathaniel S O'Connell,&nbsp;Lin Dai,&nbsp;Yunyun Jiang,&nbsp;Jaime L Speiser,&nbsp;Ralph Ward,&nbsp;Wei Wei,&nbsp;Rachel Carroll,&nbsp;Mulugeta Gebregziabher","doi":"10.4172/2155-6180.1000334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":87294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biometrics & biostatistics","volume":"8 1","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2155-6180.1000334","citationCount":"106","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Nathaniel S O'Connell,&nbsp;Lin Dai,&nbsp;Yunyun Jiang,&nbsp;Jaime L Speiser,&nbsp;Ralph Ward,&nbsp;Wei Wei,&nbsp;Rachel Carroll,&nbsp;Mulugeta Gebregziabher\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2155-6180.1000334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biometrics & biostatistics\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2155-6180.1000334\",\"citationCount\":\"106\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biometrics & biostatistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6180.1000334\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biometrics & biostatistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6180.1000334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 106

摘要

通常重复测量的数据被总结为预处理后测量。文献中存在多种估计和检验治疗效果的方法,包括方差分析(ANOVA)、协方差分析(ANCOVA)和线性混合模型(LMM)。在前两种方法下,结果既可以建模为治疗后测量(ANOVA-POST或ANCOVA-POST),也可以建模为治疗前后测量之间的变化评分(ANOVA-CHANGE, ANCOVA-CHANGE)。在LMM中,结果被建模为有或没有Kenward-Rogers调整的响应向量。我们考虑了文献中常见的五种方法,并从支持模拟和方差的理论推导方面对它们进行了讨论。与现有文献一致,我们的研究结果表明,每种方法都可以得出无偏的治疗效果估计,并且基于估计的精度、95%的覆盖概率和功率,以改变评分或治疗后评分为结果的ANCOVA模型被证明是最有效的。我们进一步展示了每个方法在一个真实的数据例子,以举例比较在真实的临床环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Methods for Analysis of Pre-Post Data in Clinical Research: A Comparison of Five Common Methods.

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 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信