PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-4 (4)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  A Tutorial on Methods to Estimating Clinically and Policy-Meaningful Measures of Treatment Effects in Prospective Observational Studies: A Review 
In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), treatment assignment is unconfounded with baseline covariates, allowing outcomes to be directly compared between treatment arms. When outcomes are binary, the effect of treatment can be summarized using relative risks, absolute risk reductions and the number needed to treat (NNT). When outcomes are time-to-event in nature, the effect of treatment on the absolute reduction of the risk of an event occurring within a specified duration of follow-up and the associated NNT can be estimated. In observational studies of the effect of treatments on health outcomes, treatment is frequently confounded with baseline covariates. Regression adjustment is commonly used to estimate the adjusted effect of treatment on outcomes. We highlight several limitations of measures of treatment effect that are directly obtained from regression models. We illustrate how both regression-based approaches and propensity-score based approaches allow one to estimate the same measures of treatment effect as those that are commonly reported in RCTs. The CONSORT statement recommends that both relative and absolute measures of treatment effects be reported for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes. The methods described in this paper will allow for similar reporting in observational studies.
doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1285
PMCID: PMC3404554  PMID: 22848188
randomized controlled trials; observational studies; causal effects; treatment effects; absolute risk reduction; relative risk reduction; number needed to treat; odds ratio; survival time; propensity score; propensity-score matching; regression; non-randomized studies; confounding
2.  Estimating Multilevel Logistic Regression Models When the Number of Clusters is Low: A Comparison of Different Statistical Software Procedures 
Multilevel logistic regression models are increasingly being used to analyze clustered data in medical, public health, epidemiological, and educational research. Procedures for estimating the parameters of such models are available in many statistical software packages. There is currently little evidence on the minimum number of clusters necessary to reliably fit multilevel regression models. We conducted a Monte Carlo study to compare the performance of different statistical software procedures for estimating multilevel logistic regression models when the number of clusters was low. We examined procedures available in BUGS, HLM, R, SAS, and Stata. We found that there were qualitative differences in the performance of different software procedures for estimating multilevel logistic models when the number of clusters was low. Among the likelihood-based procedures, estimation methods based on adaptive Gauss-Hermite approximations to the likelihood (glmer in R and xtlogit in Stata) or adaptive Gaussian quadrature (Proc NLMIXED in SAS) tended to have superior performance for estimating variance components when the number of clusters was small, compared to software procedures based on penalized quasi-likelihood. However, only Bayesian estimation with BUGS allowed for accurate estimation of variance components when there were fewer than 10 clusters. For all statistical software procedures, estimation of variance components tended to be poor when there were only five subjects per cluster, regardless of the number of clusters.
doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1195
PMCID: PMC2949382  PMID: 20949128
statistical software; multilevel models; hierarchical models; random effects model; mixed effects model; generalized linear mixed models; Monte Carlo simulations; Bayesian analysis; R; SAS; Stata; BUGS
3.  A Comparison of the Statistical Power of Different Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Cluster Randomization Trials with Binary Outcomes 
Repeated cross-sectional cluster randomization trials are cluster randomization trials in which the response variable is measured on a sample of subjects from each cluster at baseline and on a different sample of subjects from each cluster at follow-up. One can estimate the effect of the intervention on the follow-up response alone, on the follow-up responses after adjusting for baseline responses, or on the change in the follow-up response from the baseline response. We used Monte Carlo simulations to determine the relative statistical power of different methods of analysis. We examined methods of analysis based on generalized estimating equations (GEE) and a random effects model to account for within-cluster homogeneity. We also examined cluster-level analyses that treated the cluster as the unit of analysis. We found that the use of random effects models to estimate the effect of the intervention on the change in the follow-up response from the baseline response had lower statistical power compared to the other competing methods across a wide range of scenarios. The other methods tended to have similar statistical power in many settings. However, in some scenarios, those analyses that adjusted for the baseline response tended to have marginally greater power than did methods that did not account for the baseline response.
doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1179
PMCID: PMC2949381  PMID: 20949127
cluster randomization trials; cluster randomized trials; group randomized trials; statistical power; simulations; community intervention trials; clustered data; cross-sectional studies
4.  Type I Error Rates, Coverage of Confidence Intervals, and Variance Estimation in Propensity-Score Matched Analyses* 
Propensity-score matching is frequently used in the medical literature to reduce or eliminate the effect of treatment selection bias when estimating the effect of treatments or exposures on outcomes using observational data. In propensity-score matching, pairs of treated and untreated subjects with similar propensity scores are formed. Recent systematic reviews of the use of propensity-score matching found that the large majority of researchers ignore the matched nature of the propensity-score matched sample when estimating the statistical significance of the treatment effect. We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to examine the impact of ignoring the matched nature of the propensity-score matched sample on Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation of the treatment effect. We examined estimating differences in means, relative risks, odds ratios, rate ratios from Poisson models, and hazard ratios from Cox regression models. We demonstrated that accounting for the matched nature of the propensity-score matched sample tended to result in type I error rates that were closer to the advertised level compared to when matching was not incorporated into the analyses. Similarly, accounting for the matched nature of the sample tended to result in confidence intervals with coverage rates that were closer to the nominal level, compared to when matching was not taken into account. Finally, accounting for the matched nature of the sample resulted in estimates of standard error that more closely reflected the sampling variability of the treatment effect compared to when matching was not taken into account.
doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1146
PMCID: PMC2949360  PMID: 20949126
propensity score; matching; propensity-score matching; variance estimation; coverage; simulations; type I error; observational studies

Results 1-4 (4)