OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence in the neonatal literature of statistical approaches accounting for the unique clustering patterns of multiple births and to explore the sensitivity of an actual trial to several analytic approaches to multiples. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of recent perinatal trials assessed the prevalence of studies accounting for clustering of multiples. The Nitric Oxide to Prevent Chronic Lung Disease (NO CLD) trial served as a case study of the sensitivity of the outcome to several statistical strategies. We calculated odds ratios using nonclustered (logistic regression) and clustered (generalized estimating equations, multiple outputation) analyses. RESULTS: In the systematic review, most studies did not describe the random assignment of twins and did not account for clustering. Of those studies that did, exclusion of multiples and generalized estimating equations were the most common strategies. The NO CLD study included 84 infants with a sibling enrolled in the study. Multiples were more likely than singletons to be white and were born to older mothers (P < .01). Analyses that accounted for clustering were statistically significant; analyses assuming independence were not. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical approach to multiples can influence the odds ratio and width of confidence intervals, thereby affecting the interpretation of a study outcome. A minority of perinatal studies address this issue. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence in the neonatal literature of statistical approaches accounting for the unique clustering patterns of multiple births and to explore the sensitivity of an actual trial to several analytic approaches to multiples. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of recent perinatal trials assessed the prevalence of studies accounting for clustering of multiples. The Nitric Oxide to Prevent Chronic Lung Disease (NO CLD) trial served as a case study of the sensitivity of the outcome to several statistical strategies. We calculated odds ratios using nonclustered (logistic regression) and clustered (generalized estimating equations, multiple outputation) analyses. RESULTS: In the systematic review, most studies did not describe the random assignment of twins and did not account for clustering. Of those studies that did, exclusion of multiples and generalized estimating equations were the most common strategies. The NO CLD study included 84 infants with a sibling enrolled in the study. Multiples were more likely than singletons to be white and were born to older mothers (P < .01). Analyses that accounted for clustering were statistically significant; analyses assuming independence were not. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical approach to multiples can influence the odds ratio and width of confidence intervals, thereby affecting the interpretation of a study outcome. A minority of perinatal studies address this issue. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: R Lawrence Moss; Reed A Dimmitt; Douglas C Barnhart; Karl G Sylvester; Rebeccah L Brown; David M Powell; Saleem Islam; Jacob C Langer; Thomas T Sato; Mary L Brandt; Hanmin Lee; Martin L Blakely; Eric L Lazar; Ronald B Hirschl; Brian D Kenney; David J Hackam; Daniel Zelterman; Bonnie L Silverman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roberta A Ballard; William E Truog; Avital Cnaan; Richard J Martin; Philip L Ballard; Jeffrey D Merrill; Michele C Walsh; David J Durand; Dennis E Mayock; Eric C Eichenwald; Donald R Null; Mark L Hudak; Asha R Puri; Sergio G Golombek; Sherry E Courtney; Dan L Stewart; Stephen E Welty; Roderic H Phibbs; Anna Maria Hibbs; Xianqun Luan; Sandra R Wadlinger; Jeanette M Asselin; Christine E Coburn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew Whitelaw; David Evans; Michael Carter; Marianne Thoresen; Jolanta Wroblewska; Marek Mandera; Janusz Swietlinski; Judith Simpson; Constantinos Hajivassiliou; Linda P Hunt; Ian Pople Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-04-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: David P van der Ham; Jan G Nijhuis; Ben Willem J Mol; Johannes J van Beek; Brent C Opmeer; Denise Bijlenga; Mariette Groenewout; Birgit Arabin; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp; Wim J van Wijngaarden; Maurice G A J Wouters; Paula J M Pernet; Martina M Porath; Jan F M Molkenboer; Jan B Derks; Michael M Kars; Hubertina C J Scheepers; Martin J N Weinans; Mallory D Woiski; Hajo I J Wildschut; Christine Willekes Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: D M Kissin; Y Zhang; S L Boulet; C Fountain; P Bearman; L Schieve; M Yeargin-Allsopp; D J Jamieson Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Christina Friis Jensen; Anna Sellmer; Finn Ebbesen; Rasa Cipliene; Anders Johansen; Rikke Monrad Hansen; Jens Peter Nielsen; Olga Hogreffe Nikitina; Jesper Padkær Petersen; Tine Brink Henriksen Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Abhik Das; Jon Tyson; Claudia Pedroza; Barbara Schmidt; Marie Gantz; Dennis Wallace; William E Truog; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: Semin Perinatol Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 3.300
Authors: L N Yelland; E Schuit; J Zamora; P F Middleton; A C Lim; A H Nassar; L Rode; V Serra; E A Thom; C Vayssière; Bwj Mol; S Gates Journal: BJOG Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Mandy B Belfort; Sara E Ramel; Camilia R Martin; Raina Fichorova; Karl C K Kuban; Timothy Heeren; Rebecca C Fry; T Michael O'Shea Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 4.406