ArticleStatistics in medicine2019
Overdispersion models for correlated multinomial data: Applications to blinding assessment.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blinding, sham, and treatment effects in randomized controlled trials for back pain in 2000-2019: A review and meta-analytic approach.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Unmasking three blinding indices for randomized controlled trials: comparison and application.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Blinding Assessment: One Step Forward.Dental hypothesesArticle
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
Overdispersion models have been extensively studied for correlated normal and binomial data but much less so for correlated multinomial data. In this work, we describe a multinomial overdispersion model that leads to the specification of the first two moments of the outcome and allows the estimation of the global parameters using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We introduce a Global Blinding Index as a target parameter and illustrate the application of the GEE method to its estimation from (1) a clinical trial with clustering by practitioner and (2) a meta-analysis on psychiatric disorders. We examine the impact of a small number of clusters, high variability in cluster sizes, and the magnitude of the intraclass correlation on the performance of the GEE estimators of the Global Blinding Index using the data simulated from different models. We compare these estimators with the inverse-variance weighted estimators and a maximum-likelihood estimator, derived under the Dirichlet-multinomial model. Our results indicate that the performance of the GEE estimators was satisfactory even in situations with a small number of clusters, whereas the inverse-variance weighted estimators performed poorly, especially for larger values of the intraclass correlation coefficient. Our findings and illustrations may be instrumental for practitioners who analyze clustered multinomial data from clinical trials and/or meta-analysis.
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.