ArticleDrug information journal2012
Relative Efficiency of Unequal Versus Equal Cluster Sizes for the Nonparametric Weighted Sign Test Estimators in Clustered Binary Data.
Article in Drug information journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We consider analysis of clustered binary data from multiple observations for each subject in which any two observations from a subject are assumed to have a common correlation coefficient. In the weighted sign test on proportion in clustered binary data, three weighting schemes are considered: equal weights to observations, equal weights to clusters and the optimal weights that minimize the variance of the estimator. Since the distribution of cluster sizes may not be exactly specified before the trial starts, the sample size is usually determined using an average cluster size without taking into account any potential imbalance in cluster size even though cluster size usually varies among clusters. In this paper we investigate the relative efficiency (RE) of unequal versus equal cluster sizes for clustered binary data using the weighted sign test estimators. The REs are computed as a function of correlation among observations within each subject and the various cluster size distributions. The required sample size for unequal cluster sizes will not exceed the sample size for an equal cluster size multiplied by the maximum RE. It is concluded that the maximum RE for various cluster size distributions considered here does not exceed 1.50, 1.61 and 1.12 for equal weights to observations, equal weights to clusters and optimal weights, respectively. It suggests sampling 50%, 61% and 12% more clusters depending on the weighting schemes than the number of clusters computed using an average cluster size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.