The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Beyond Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance: Advanced Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Anesthesia Research
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Research in the field of anesthesiology relies heavily on longitudinal designs for answering questions about long-term efficacy and safety of various anesthetic and pain regimens. Yet, anesthesiology research is lagging in the use of advanced statistical methods for analyzing longitudinal data. The goal of this article was to increase awareness of the advantages of modern statistical methods and promote their use in anesthesia research. METHODS: Here we introduce 2 modern and advanced statistical methods for analyzing longitudinal data: the generalized estimating equations (GEE) and mixed-effects models (MEM). These methods were compared with the conventional repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) through a clinical example with 2 types of end points (continuous and binary). In addition, we compared GEE and MEM to RM-ANOVA through a simulation study with varying sample sizes, varying number of repeated measures, and scenarios with and without missing data. RESULTS: In the clinical study, the 3 methods are found to be similar in terms of statistical estimation, whereas the parameter interpretations are somewhat different. The simulation study shows that the methods of GEE and MEM are more efficient in that they are able to achieve higher power with smaller sample size or lower number of repeated measurements in both complete and missing data scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Based on their advantages over RM-ANOVA, GEE and MEM should be strongly considered for the analysis of longitudinal data. In particular, GEE should be used to explore overall average effects, and MEM should be used when subject-specific effects (in addition to overall average effects) are of primary interest.
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
Cited by
Selten, F., Robeer, M., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13602 · Cited by 153
de Melo, M. B., Daldegan‐Bueno, D., Menezes Oliveira, M. G., & de Souza, A. L. (2022) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.15858 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Ma, Y., Mazumdar, M., & Memtsoudis, S. G.
- Venue
- Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-105
- ISSN
- 1098-7339 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2913049709
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance: Advanced Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Anesthesia Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aap.0b013e31823ebc74
- The paper
- Ma, Y., Mazumdar, M., & Memtsoudis, S. G. (2012). Beyond Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance: Advanced Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Anesthesia Research. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/aap.0b013e31823ebc74
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.