The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Population-Averaged and Subject-Specific Approaches for Analyzing Repeated Binary Outcomes
Abstract
Several approaches have been proposed to model binary outcomes that arise from longitudinal studies. Most of the approaches can be grouped into two classes: the population-averaged and subject-specific approaches. The generalized estimating equations (GEE) method is commonly used to estimate population-averaged effects, while random-effects logistic models can be used to estimate subject-specific effects. However, it is not clear to many epidemiologists how these two methods relate to one another or how these methods relate to more traditional stratified analysis and standard logistic models. The authors address these issues in the context of a longitudinal smoking prevention trial, the Midwestern Prevention Project. In particular, the authors compare results from stratified analysis, standard logistic models, conditional logistic models, the GEE models, and random-effects models by analyzing a binary outcome from two and seven repeated measurements, respectively. In the comparison, the authors focus on the interpretation of both time-varying and time-invariant covariates under different models. Implications of these methods for epidemiologic research are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference Between Correlated Proportions or Percentages
McNemar, Q. (1947) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02295996 · Cited by 4,754
MIXOR: a computer program for mixed-effects ordinal regression analysis
Hedeker, D., & Gibbons, R. D. (1996) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/0169-2607(96)01720-8 · Cited by 408
Self-citation
Cited by
Pickles, A., Le Couteur, A., Leadbitter, K., Salomone, E., Cole-Fletcher, R., Tobin, H., Gammer, I., Lowry, J., Vamvakas, G., Byford, S., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31229-6 · Cited by 519
Food-frequency questionnaires: a review of their design, validation and utilisation
Cade, J. E., Burley, V. J., Warm, D. L., Thompson, R. L., & Margetts, B. M. (2004) · Nutrition Research Reviews · doi:10.1079/nrr200370 · Cited by 518
Ghisletta, P., & Spini, D. (2004) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986029004421 · Cited by 388
Experimental design and primary data analysis methods for comparing adaptive interventions.
Nahum-Shani, I., Qian, M., Almirall, D., Pelham, W. E., Gnagy, B., Fabiano, G. A., Waxmonsky, J. G., Yu, J., & Murphy, S. A. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0029372 · Cited by 298
Generic, Simple Risk Stratification Model for Heart Valve Surgery
Ambler, G., Omar, R. Z., Royston, P., Kinsman, R., Keogh, B. E., & Taylor, K. M. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.104.515049 · Cited by 279
Low Somatic Cell Count: a Risk Factor for Subsequent Clinical Mastitis in a Dairy Herd
Suriyasathaporn, W., Schukken, Y. H., Nielen, M., & Brand, A. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)74991-5 · Cited by 172
Cocaine craving and use during daily life
Preston, K. L., Vahabzadeh, M., Schmittner, J., Lin, J.-L., Gorelick, D. A., & Epstein, D. H. (2009) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1655-8 · Cited by 123
Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: principles
Morris, T. P., Kahan, B. C., & White, I. R. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-11 · Cited by 75
“consider approaches to analysing a study with a longitudinal binary outcome [14], comparing random effects approaches with generalised estimating equations.”
MethodMcKenzie, J. E., French, S. D., O'Connor, D. A., Grimshaw, J. M., Mortimer, D., Michie, S., Francis, J., Spike, N., Schattner, P., Kent, P. M., et al. (2008) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-11 · Cited by 77
Preisser, J. S. (2003) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwg169 · Cited by 61
Critical care transition programs and the risk of readmission or death after discharge from ICU.
Stelfox, H. T., Bastos, J., Niven, D. J., Bagshaw, S. M., Turin, T. C., & Gao, S. (2016) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-015-4173-7 · Cited by 60
Artenie, A. A., Bruneau, J., Roy, É., Zang, G., Lespérance, F., Renaud, J., Tremblay, J., & Jutras‐Aswad, D. (2015) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.13030 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, F. B., Goldberg, J., Hedeker, D., Flay, B. R., & Pentz, M. A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-04-01
- Volume
- 147
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 694-703
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2104694481
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 7.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
