Literature DB >> 12872299

Analysis of clustered matched-pair data.

Valerie L Durkalski1, Yuko Y Palesch, Stuart R Lipsitz, Philip F Rust.   

Abstract

Evaluation of the performance of a new diagnostic procedure with respect to a standard procedure arises frequently in practice. The response of interest, often in a dichotomous form, is measured twice, once with each procedure. The two procedures are administered to either two matched individuals, or when practical, to the same individual. A large sample test for matched-pair data is the McNemar test. The main assumption of this test is independent paired responses; however, when more than one outcome from an individual is measured by each procedure, the data are clustered. Examples of such cases can be seen in dental and ophthalmology studies. Variance adjustment methods for the analysis of clustered matched-pair data have been proposed; however, because of unequal cluster sizes, variability of correlation structures within a cluster (within paired responses in a cluster as well as between paired responses in a cluster), and unequal success probabilities among the clusters, the performances of some available methods are not consistent. This research proposes a simple adjustment to the McNemar test for the analysis of clustered matched-pair data. Method of moments is used to calculate a consistent variance estimator. Using Monte Carlo simulation, the size and power of the proposed test are compared to those of two currently available methods. To illustrate practical application, clustered matched-pair data from two clinical studies are analysed. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12872299     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1438

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  30 in total

1.  Temporal bone imaging using digital volume tomography and computed tomography: a comparative cadaveric radiological study.

Authors:  Afshin Teymoortash; Stella Hamzei; Tobias Murthum; Behfar Eivazi; Ingo Kureck; Jochen A Werner
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 1.246

2.  Flat-panel versus 64-channel computed tomography for in vivo quantitative characterization of aortic atherosclerotic plaques.

Authors:  Ibrahim Aboshady; Dianna D Cody; Evan M Johnson; Amir Gahremanpour; Deborah Vela; Kamal G Khalil; Herbert L Dupont; James T Willerson; L Maximilian Buja; Gregory W Gladish
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.164

3.  Unipolar depression does not moderate responses to the Sweet Taste Test.

Authors:  Gabriel S Dichter; Moria J Smoski; Alexey B Kampov-Polevoy; Robert Gallop; James C Garbutt
Journal:  Depress Anxiety       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 6.505

4.  Re: Enrichment broth and detection of extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing bacteria in throat and rectal surveillance cultures of intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  Bram M W Diederen; Sjoerd M Euser
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Multiple McNemar tests.

Authors:  Peter H Westfall; James F Troendle; Gene Pennello
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  A statistical approach to bioclimatic trend detection in the airborne pollen records of Catalonia (NE Spain).

Authors:  Alvaro Fernández-Llamazares; Jordina Belmonte; Rosario Delgado; Concepción De Linares
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 3.787

7.  Inhibitors of mTOR and risks of allograft failure and mortality in kidney transplantation.

Authors:  T Isakova; H Xie; S Messinger; F Cortazar; J J Scialla; G Guerra; G Contreras; D Roth; G W Burke; M Z Molnar; I Mucsi; M Wolf
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 8.086

8.  Patient satisfaction with GP-led melanoma follow-up: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  P Murchie; M C Nicolson; P C Hannaford; E A Raja; A J Lee; N C Campbell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Bayesian aggregation versus majority vote in the characterization of non-specific arm pain based on quantitative needle electromyography.

Authors:  Andrew Hamilton-Wright; Linda McLean; Daniel W Stashuk; Kristina M Calder
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2010-02-15       Impact factor: 4.262

10.  The Hip Impact Protection Project: design and methods.

Authors:  Bruce A Barton; Stanley J Birge; Jay Magaziner; Sheryl Zimmerman; Linda Ball; Kathleen M Brown; Douglas P Kiel
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.