ArticleStatistics in medicine2018
Secondary outcome analysis for data from an outcome-dependent sampling design.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plasma proteomics reveals markers of metabolic stress in HIV infected children with severe acute malnutrition.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- A Likelihood Approach to Proper Analysis of Secondary Outcomes in Matched Case-Control Studies.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Outcome-dependent sampling (ODS) scheme is a cost-effective way to conduct a study. For a study with continuous primary outcome, an ODS scheme can be implemented where the expensive exposure is only measured on a simple random sample and supplemental samples selected from 2 tails of the primary outcome variable. With the tremendous cost invested in collecting the primary exposure information, investigators often would like to use the available data to study the relationship between a secondary outcome and the obtained exposure variable. This is referred as secondary analysis. Secondary analysis in ODS designs can be tricky, as the ODS sample is not a random sample from the general population. In this article, we use the inverse probability weighted and augmented inverse probability weighted estimating equations to analyze the secondary outcome for data obtained from the ODS design. We do not make any parametric assumptions on the primary and secondary outcome and only specify the form of the regression mean models, thus allow an arbitrary error distribution. Our approach is robust to second- and higher-order moment misspecification. It also leads to more precise estimates of the parameters by effectively using all the available participants. Through simulation studies, we show that the proposed estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. Data from the Collaborative Perinatal Project are analyzed to illustrate our method.
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.