Literature DB >> 14695640

Effects and non-effects of paired identical observations in comparing proportions with binary matched-pairs data.

Alan Agresti1, Yongyi Min.   

Abstract

Binary matched-pairs data occur commonly in longitudinal studies, such as in cross-over experiments. Many analyses for comparing the matched probabilities of a particular outcome do not utilize pairs having the same outcome for each observation. An example is McNemar's test. Some methodologists find this to be counterintuitive. We review this issue in the context of subject-specific and population-averaged models for binary data, with various link functions. For standard models and inferential methods, pairs with identical outcomes may affect the estimated size of the effect and its standard error, but they have negligible, if any, effect on significance. We also discuss extension of this result to matched sets. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14695640     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1589

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


  20 in total

1.  Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 0.968

2.  Outcomes of a Clinic-Based Educational Intervention for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention by Race, Ethnicity, and Urban/Rural Status.

Authors:  Amparo C Villablanca; Christina Slee; Liana Lianov; Daniel Tancredi
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Combining Non-randomized and Randomized Data in Clinical Trials Using Commensurate Priors.

Authors:  Hong Zhao; Brian P Hobbs; Haijun Ma; Qi Jiang; Bradley P Carlin
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2016-08-06

4.  Association of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting With Stroke or Death Among Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis.

Authors:  Marc L Schermerhorn; Patric Liang; Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen; Jack L Cronenwett; Brian W Nolan; Vikram S Kashyap; Grace J Wang; Raghu L Motaganahalli; Mahmoud B Malas
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Effect of genomics-related literacy on non-communicable diseases.

Authors:  Sho Nakamura; Hiroto Narimatsu; Kayoko Katayama; Ri Sho; Takashi Yoshioka; Akira Fukao; Takamasa Kayama
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 3.172

Review 6.  Oversampling and replacement strategies in propensity score matching: a critical review focused on small sample size in clinical settings.

Authors:  Daniele Bottigliengo; Ileana Baldi; Corrado Lanera; Giulia Lorenzoni; Jonida Bejko; Tomaso Bottio; Vincenzo Tarzia; Massimiliano Carrozzini; Gino Gerosa; Paola Berchialla; Dario Gregori
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Use of dabigatran for periprocedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Mohamed Bassiouny; Walid Saliba; John Rickard; Mingyuan Shao; Albert Sey; Mariam Diab; David O Martin; Ayman Hussein; Maurice Khoury; Bernard Abi-Saleh; Samir Alam; Jay Sengupta; P Peter Borek; Bryan Baranowski; Mark Niebauer; Thomas Callahan; Niraj Varma; Mina Chung; Patrick J Tchou; Mohamed Kanj; Thomas Dresing; Bruce D Lindsay; Oussama Wazni
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2013-04-03

8.  Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.894

9.  Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-02-21       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-09-10       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.