Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29682775›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2018

Secondary outcome analysis for data from an outcome-dependent sampling design.

Yinghao Pan, Jianwen Cai, Matthew P Longnecker, Haibo Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yinghao PanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4022-1815
Jianwen CaiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Matthew P LongneckerEpidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Haibo ZhouDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephanie Engel · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
Statistical Methods for Cancer Clinical TrialsP01CA142538 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KOSOROK, MICHAEL R · 2010 to 2019
$21.3M
Statistical Methods for Outcome-Dependent SamplingR01ES021900 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ZHOU, HAIBO · 2013 to 2016
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA142538NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES021900
6 · The paper itself

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

Data Interpretation, StatisticalSampling StudiesCongenital AbnormalitiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornModels, StatisticalOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancyProbabilityRisk FactorsTreatment Outcomebiased samplingestimating equationmissing datasecondary analysissemiparametric estimationvalidation sample

Identifiers

PMID29682775
PMCPMC6130921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.