↓ Skip to main content

Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Performance of models for estimating absolute risk difference in multicenter trials with binary outcome
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0217-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Pedroza, Van Thi Truong

Abstract

Reporting of absolute risk difference (RD) is recommended for clinical and epidemiological prospective studies. In analyses of multicenter studies, adjustment for center is necessary when randomization is stratified by center or when there is large variation in patients outcomes across centers. While regression methods are used to estimate RD adjusted for baseline predictors and clustering, no formal evaluation of their performance has been previously conducted. We performed a simulation study to evaluate 6 regression methods fitted under a generalized estimating equation framework: binomial identity, Poisson identity, Normal identity, log binomial, log Poisson, and logistic regression model. We compared the model estimates to unadjusted estimates. We varied the true response function (identity or log), number of subjects per center, true risk difference, control outcome rate, effect of baseline predictor, and intracenter correlation. We compared the models in terms of convergence, absolute bias and coverage of 95 % confidence intervals for RD. The 6 models performed very similar to each other for the majority of scenarios. However, the log binomial model did not converge for a large portion of the scenarios including a baseline predictor. In scenarios with outcome rate close to the parameter boundary, the binomial and Poisson identity models had the best performance, but differences from other models were negligible. The unadjusted method introduced little bias to the RD estimates, but its coverage was larger than the nominal value in some scenarios with an identity response. Under the log response, coverage from the unadjusted method was well below the nominal value (<80 %) for some scenarios. We recommend the use of a binomial or Poisson GEE model with identity link to estimate RD for correlated binary outcome data. If these models fail to run, then either a logistic regression, log Poisson regression, or linear regression GEE model can be used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Engineering 3 5%
Mathematics 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,242,345
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,248
of 2,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,650
of 336,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#25
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.