Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,136

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Analysis of serial measurements in medical research.

Open access
Matthews, J N, Altman, D G, Campbell, M J, Royston, P·1990·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.300.6719.230
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In medical research data are often collected serially on subjects. The statistical analysis of such data is often inadequate in two ways: it may fail to settle clinically relevant questions and it may be statistically invalid. A commonly used method which compares groups at a series of time points, possibly with t tests, is flawed on both counts. There may, however, be a remedy, which takes the form of a two stage method that uses summary measures. In the first stage a suitable summary of the response in an individual, such as a rate of change or an area under a curve, is identified and calculated for each subject. In the second stage these summary measures are analysed by simple statistical techniques as though they were raw data. The method is statistically valid and likely to be more relevant to the study questions. If this method is borne in mind when the experiment is being planned it should promote studies with enough subjects and sufficient observations at critical times to enable useful conclusions to be drawn. Use of summary measures to analyse serial measurements, though not new, is potentially a useful and simple tool in medical research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.300.6719.230

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Illingworth PJ, Jung RT, Howie I'W, Isles TE. Reduction in postprandial energy expenditure during pregnancy. BrMedj 1987;294:1573-6.
  2. Bradley JR, Esans DB, Gore SM, Cowley AJ. Is dialysis hypotension caused by an abnormality of senous tone? Br MedJ 1988;2%:1634-7.
  3. Fikri MM, Ghalioungui P. Ancylostoma anaemia. Lancet 1937;i:800-2. · DOI
  4. Wishart J. Growth rate determination in nutrition studies with the bacon pig, and their analysis. Biometrika 1938;30:16-28.
  5. Oldham PD. A note on the analysis of repeated measurements of the same subjects. J Chronic Dis 1962;15:969-77. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Rowell JG, Walters DE. Analysing data with repeated observations on each experimental unit. Journal ofAgricultural Science (Camb) 1976;87:423-32.
  7. Healy MJR. Some problems of repeated measurements. In: Bithell JF, Coppi R, eds. Perspectives tn medical statistics. London: Academic Press, 1981: 155-7.
  8. De Klerk NH. Repeated warnings re repeated measures. Aust N Z 7lMed 1986;16:637-8.
  9. Armitage P, Berrt G. Statistical methods in medical research. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 1987:355,360,411.
  10. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BrMted_7 1986;292:746-50.
  11. Tsai K-T, Koziol JA. VARCOV 11: a computer program for the multivariate analysis of growth and response curves. Comput Methods Programs Bismed 1988;27:69-74. · DOI
  12. Kenward MG. A method for comparing profiles of repeated measurements. Applied Statistics 1987;36:296-308. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Matthews, J. N., Altman, D. G., Campbell, M. J., & Royston, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1990-01-27
Volume
300
Issue
6719
Pages
230-235
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.300.6719.230
OpenAlex
W2028067695
Cited by
3,136
References
0
FWCI
78.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)

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.