Cited by 116Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceStatistical Methods and Applications

Beyond ANOVA and MANOVA for repeated measures: Advantages of generalized estimated equations and generalized linear mixed models and its use in neuroscience research

de Melo, Márcio Braga, Daldegan‐Bueno, Dimitri, Menezes Oliveira, Maria Gabriela, de Souza, Altay Lino·2022·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

In neuroscience research, longitudinal data are often analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for repeated measures (rmANOVA/rmMANOVA). However, these analyses have special requirements: The variances of the differences between all possible pairs of within‐subject conditions (i.e., levels of the independent variable) must be equal. They are also limited to fixed repeated time intervals and are sensitive to missing data. In contrast, other models, such as the generalized estimating equations (GEE) and the generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), suggest another way to think about the data and the studied phenomenon. Instead of forcing the data into the ANOVAs assumptions, it is possible to design a flexible/personalized model according to the nature of the dependent variable. We discuss some advantages of GEE and GLMM as alternatives to rmANOVA and rmMANOVA in neuroscience research, including the possibility of using different distributions for the parameters of the dependent variable, a better approach for different time length points, and better adjustment to missing data. We illustrate these advantages by showing a comparison between rmANOVA and GEE in a real example and providing the data and a tutorial code to reproduce these analyses in R. We conclude that GEE and GLMM may provide more reliable results when compared to rmANOVA and rmMANOVA in neuroscience research, especially in small sample sizes with unbalanced longitudinal designs with or without missing data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ejn.15858

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Melo, M. B., Daldegan‐Bueno, D., Menezes Oliveira, M. G., & de Souza, A. L.
Affiliations
  • Departamento de Psicobiologia Universidade Federal de São Paulo São Paulo SP Brazil
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-11-14
Volume
56
Issue
12
Pages
6089-6098
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W4308372578
Cited by
116
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 8
FWCI
14.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Agriculture, Soil, Plant Science
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
generalized estimating equations, generalized linear mixed models, repeated measures ANOVA, longitudinal analysis, missing data, unbalanced designs, small sample size, within-subject variance, time-varying covariates, neuroscience data analysis
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Longitudinal Studies, Neurosciences, Research Design, Models, Statistical, Linear Models

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