Suppr超能文献

在中心数量较少的多中心研究中估计相对风险——应使用哪些方法?一项模拟研究。

Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers - which methods to use? A simulation study.

作者信息

Pedroza Claudia, Truong Van Thi Thanh

机构信息

Center for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 2.106, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.

出版信息

Trials. 2017 Nov 2;18(1):512. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2248-1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Analyses of multicenter studies often need to account for center clustering to ensure valid inference. For binary outcomes, it is particularly challenging to properly adjust for center when the number of centers or total sample size is small, or when there are few events per center. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of generalized estimating equation (GEE) log-binomial and Poisson models, generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming binomial and Poisson distributions, and a Bayesian binomial GLMM to account for center effect in these scenarios.

METHODS

We conducted a simulation study with few centers (≤30) and 50 or fewer subjects per center, using both a randomized controlled trial and an observational study design to estimate relative risk. We compared the GEE and GLMM models with a log-binomial model without adjustment for clustering in terms of bias, root mean square error (RMSE), and coverage. For the Bayesian GLMM, we used informative neutral priors that are skeptical of large treatment effects that are almost never observed in studies of medical interventions.

RESULTS

All frequentist methods exhibited little bias, and the RMSE was very similar across the models. The binomial GLMM had poor convergence rates, ranging from 27% to 85%, but performed well otherwise. The results show that both GEE models need to use small sample corrections for robust SEs to achieve proper coverage of 95% CIs. The Bayesian GLMM had similar convergence rates but resulted in slightly more biased estimates for the smallest sample sizes. However, it had the smallest RMSE and good coverage across all scenarios. These results were very similar for both study designs.

CONCLUSIONS

For the analyses of multicenter studies with a binary outcome and few centers, we recommend adjustment for center with either a GEE log-binomial or Poisson model with appropriate small sample corrections or a Bayesian binomial GLMM with informative priors.

摘要

背景

多中心研究的分析通常需要考虑中心聚类以确保有效推断。对于二元结局,当中心数量或总样本量较小,或者每个中心的事件数较少时,对中心进行适当调整尤其具有挑战性。我们的目的是评估广义估计方程(GEE)对数二项式和泊松模型、假设二项式和泊松分布的广义线性混合模型(GLMM)以及贝叶斯二项式GLMM在这些情况下考虑中心效应的性能。

方法

我们进行了一项模拟研究,中心数量较少(≤30)且每个中心有50名或更少的受试者,采用随机对照试验和观察性研究设计来估计相对风险。我们将GEE和GLMM模型与未对聚类进行调整的对数二项式模型在偏差、均方根误差(RMSE)和覆盖率方面进行了比较。对于贝叶斯GLMM,我们使用了信息性中性先验,这种先验对医学干预研究中几乎从未观察到的大治疗效果持怀疑态度。

结果

所有频率主义方法的偏差都很小,并且各模型的RMSE非常相似。二项式GLMM的收敛率较差,范围在27%至85%之间,但在其他方面表现良好。结果表明,两个GEE模型都需要使用小样本校正来获得稳健的标准误,以实现95%置信区间的适当覆盖。贝叶斯GLMM的收敛率相似,但对于最小样本量,其估计偏差略大。然而,它在所有情况下的RMSE最小且覆盖率良好。两种研究设计的这些结果非常相似。

结论

对于二元结局且中心数量较少的多中心研究分析,我们建议使用具有适当小样本校正的GEE对数二项式或泊松模型,或具有信息性先验的贝叶斯二项式GLMM对中心进行调整。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/acf2/5667460/aa1893bc1d84/13063_2017_2248_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验