ArticleStatistics in medicine2018
Likelihood-based analysis of outcome-dependent sampling designs with longitudinal data.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Two-Phase, Generalized Case-Control Designs for the Study of Quantitative Longitudinal Outcomes.American journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
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
The use of outcome-dependent sampling with longitudinal data analysis has previously been shown to improve efficiency in the estimation of regression parameters. The motivating scenario is when outcome data exist for all cohort members but key exposure variables will be gathered only on a subset. Inference with outcome-dependent sampling designs that also incorporates incomplete information from those individuals who did not have their exposure ascertained has been investigated for univariate but not longitudinal outcomes. Therefore, with a continuous longitudinal outcome, we explore the relative contributions of various sources of information toward the estimation of key regression parameters using a likelihood framework. We evaluate the efficiency gains that alternative estimators might offer over random sampling, and we offer insight into their relative merits in select practical scenarios. Finally, we illustrate the potential impact of design and analysis choices using data from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry.
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.