Literature DB >> 18816501

A comparison of three random effects approaches to analyze repeated bounded outcome scores with an application in a stroke revalidation study.

Marek Molas1, Emmanuel Lesaffre.   

Abstract

Discrete bounded outcome scores (BOS), i.e. discrete measurements that are restricted on a finite interval, often occur in practice. Examples are compliance measures, quality of life measures, etc. In this paper we examine three related random effects approaches to analyze longitudinal studies with a BOS as response: (1) a linear mixed effects (LM) model applied to a logistic transformed modified BOS; (2) a model assuming that the discrete BOS is a coarsened version of a latent random variable, which after a logistic-normal transformation, satisfies an LM model; and (3) a random effects probit model. We consider also the extension whereby the variability of the BOS is allowed to depend on covariates. The methods are contrasted using a simulation study and on a longitudinal project, which documents stroke rehabilitation in four European countries using measures of motor and functional recovery. Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18816501     DOI: 10.1002/sim.3432

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


  6 in total

1.  Modeling of bounded outcome scores with data on the boundaries: application to disability assessment for dementia scores in Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Xu Steven Xu; Mahesh Samtani; Min Yuan; Partha Nandy
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 4.009

2.  Bounded outcome score modeling: application to treating psoriasis with ustekinumab.

Authors:  Chuanpu Hu; Newman Yeilding; Hugh M Davis; Honghui Zhou
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2011-06-18       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  IMPROVE trial: a randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled analgesia for sickle cell painful episodes: rationale, design challenges, initial experience, and recommendations for future studies.

Authors:  Carlton D Dampier; Wally R Smith; Carrie G Wager; Hae-Young Kim; Margaret C Bell; Scott T Miller; Debra L Weiner; Caterina P Minniti; Lakshmanan Krishnamurti; Kenneth I Ataga; James R Eckman; Lewis L Hsu; Donna McClish; Sonja M McKinlay; Robert Molokie; Ifeyinwa Osunkwo; Kim Smith-Whitley; Marilyn J Telen
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Mixed-effects beta regression for modeling continuous bounded outcome scores using NONMEM when data are not on the boundaries.

Authors:  Xu Steven Xu; Mahesh N Samtani; Adrian Dunne; Partha Nandy; An Vermeulen; Filip De Ridder
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-05-05       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Analysing the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT): a cautionary tale from the RATULS trial.

Authors:  Nina Wilson; Denise Howel; Helen Bosomworth; Lisa Shaw; Helen Rodgers
Journal:  Int J Rehabil Res       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 1.832

6.  Alzheimer's disease progression model using disability assessment for dementia scores from bapineuzumab trials.

Authors:  Steven X Xu; Mahesh N Samtani; Alberto Russu; Omoniyi J Adedokun; Ming Lu; Kaori Ito; Brian Corrigan; Sangeeta Raje; H Robert Brashear; Scot Styren; Chuanpu Hu
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement (N Y)       Date:  2015-07-21
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.