Jing Huang1, Jiayan Huang2, Yong Chen1, Gui-Shuang Ying1,2. 1. a Division of Biostatistics , Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 2. b Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine , University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of commonly used statistical methods for analyzing continuous correlated eye data when sample size is small. METHODS: We simulated correlated continuous data from two designs: (1) two eyes of a subject in two comparison groups; (2) two eyes of a subject in the same comparison group, under various sample size (5-50), inter-eye correlation (0-0.75) and effect size (0-0.8). Simulated data were analyzed using paired t-test, two sample t-test, Wald test and score test using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) and F-test using linear mixed effects model (LMM). We compared type I error rates and statistical powers, and demonstrated analysis approaches through analyzing two real datasets. RESULTS: In design 1, paired t-test and LMM perform better than GEE, with nominal type 1 error rate and higher statistical power. In design 2, no test performs uniformly well: two sample t-test (average of two eyes or a random eye) achieves better control of type I error but yields lower statistical power. In both designs, the GEE Wald test inflates type I error rate and GEE score test has lower power. CONCLUSION: When sample size is small, some commonly used statistical methods do not perform well. Paired t-test and LMM perform best when two eyes of a subject are in two different comparison groups, and t-test using the average of two eyes performs best when the two eyes are in the same comparison group. When selecting the appropriate analysis approach the study design should be considered.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of commonly used statistical methods for analyzing continuous correlated eye data when sample size is small. METHODS: We simulated correlated continuous data from two designs: (1) two eyes of a subject in two comparison groups; (2) two eyes of a subject in the same comparison group, under various sample size (5-50), inter-eye correlation (0-0.75) and effect size (0-0.8). Simulated data were analyzed using paired t-test, two sample t-test, Wald test and score test using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) and F-test using linear mixed effects model (LMM). We compared type I error rates and statistical powers, and demonstrated analysis approaches through analyzing two real datasets. RESULTS: In design 1, paired t-test and LMM perform better than GEE, with nominal type 1 error rate and higher statistical power. In design 2, no test performs uniformly well: two sample t-test (average of two eyes or a random eye) achieves better control of type I error but yields lower statistical power. In both designs, the GEE Wald test inflates type I error rate and GEE score test has lower power. CONCLUSION: When sample size is small, some commonly used statistical methods do not perform well. Paired t-test and LMM perform best when two eyes of a subject are in two different comparison groups, and t-test using the average of two eyes performs best when the two eyes are in the same comparison group. When selecting the appropriate analysis approach the study design should be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
Correlated eye data; generalized estimating equations; linear mixed effects model; paired t-test; small sample size; two sample t-test
Authors: Alan E Hubbard; Jennifer Ahern; Nancy L Fleischer; Mark Van der Laan; Sheri A Lippman; Nicholas Jewell; Tim Bruckner; William A Satariano Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: William A Beltran; Artur V Cideciyan; Simone Iwabe; Malgorzata Swider; Mychajlo S Kosyk; Kendra McDaid; Inna Martynyuk; Gui-Shuang Ying; James Shaffer; Wen-Tao Deng; Sanford L Boye; Alfred S Lewin; William W Hauswirth; Samuel G Jacobson; Gustavo D Aguirre Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joseph L Demer; Robert A Clark; Soh Youn Suh; Joann A Giaconi; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Simon K Law; Laura Bonelli; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Jessica Y Chen; Alan Le; Joseph Caprioli; JoAnn A Giaconi; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Simon K Law; Laura Bonelli; Anne L Coleman; Joseph L Demer Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Robert A Clark; Soh Youn Suh; Joseph Caprioli; JoAnn A Giaconi; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Simon K Law; Laura Bonelli; Anne L Coleman; Joseph L Demer Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Ou Tan; Liang Liu; Qisheng You; Jie Wang; Aiyin Chen; Eliesa Ing; John C Morrison; Yali Jia; David Huang Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.283