This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Have, T. R T. Articles by Miller, M. E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Have, T. R T. Articles by Miller, M. E Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Deviations from the population-averaged versus cluster-specific relationship for clustered binary data

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA, ttenhave{at}cceb.upenn.edu

Sarah J Ratcliffe

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Beth A Reboussin

Section on Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

Michael E Miller

Section on Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

There has been much debate about the relative merits of mixed effects and population-averaged logistic models. We present a different perspective on this issue by noting that the investigation of the relationship between these models for a given dataset offers a type of sensitivity analysis that may reveal problems with assumptions of the mixed effects and/or population-averaged models for clustered binary response data in general and longitudinal binary outcomes in particular. We present several datasets in which the following violations of assumptions are associated with departures from the expected theoretical relationship between these two models: 1) negative intra-cluster correlations; 2) confounding of the response-covariate relationship by cluster effects; and 3) confounding of autoregressive relationships by the link between baseline outcomes and subject effects. Under each of these conditions, the expected theoretical attenuation of the population-averaged odds ratio relative to the cluster-specific odds ratio does not necessarily occur. In all cases, the naive fltting of a random intercept logistic model appears to lead to bias. In response, the random intercept model is modified to accommodate negative intra-cluster correlations, confounding due to clusters, or baseline correlations with random effects. Comparisons are made with GEE estimation of population-averaged models and conditional likelihood estimation of cluster-specific models. Several examples, including a cross-over trial, a multicentre nonrandomized treatment study, and a longitudinal observational study are used to illustrate these modiflcations.

Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, 3-16 (2004)
DOI: 10.1191/0962280204sm355ra


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?