Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32300374›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2020

Correlation Coefficients for a Study with Repeated Measures.

Guogen Shan, Hua Zhang, Tao Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Guogen ShanEpidemiology and Biostatistics Program, School of Public Health, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8690-6599
Hua ZhangSchool of Computer and Information Engineering, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1379-2348
Tao JiangSchool of Statistics and Mathematics, and School of Business, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4306-3971

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Repeated measures are increasingly collected in a study to investigate the trajectory of measures over time. One of the first research questions is to determine the correlation between two measures. The following five methods for correlation calculation are compared: (1) Pearson correlation; (2) correlation of subject means; (3) partial correlation for subject effect; (4) partial correlation for visit effect; and (5) a mixed model approach. Pearson correlation coefficient is traditionally used in a cross-sectional study. Pearson correlation is close to the correlations computed from mixed-effects models that consider the correlation structure, but Pearson correlation may not be theoretically appropriate in a repeated-measure study as it ignores the correlation of the outcomes from multiple visits within the same subject. We compare these methods with regard to the average of correlation and the mean squared error. In general, correlation under the mixed-effects model with the compound symmetric structure is recommended as its correlation is close to the nominal level with small mean square error.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseComputational BiologyComputer SimulationCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualData Interpretation, StatisticalDisease ProgressionHumansLongitudinal StudiesModels, StatisticalNeuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID32300374
PMCPMC7136761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.