Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36125070›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2022

Analytical methods for correlated data arising from multicenter hearing studies.

Yanghui Sheng, Ce Yang, Sharon Curhan, Gary Curhan, Molin Wang

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yanghui ShengDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4204-1965
Ce YangDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2830-6672
Sharon CurhanHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Gary CurhanDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Molin WangDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1951-8961
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Life Course Cancer Epidemiology Cohort in WomenU01CA176726 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI ELIASSEN, A. HEATHER, WILLETT, WALTER C. · 2018 to 2025
$22.4M
Integrating lifecourse approaches, biologic and digital phenotypes in support of heart and lung disease epidemiologic researchU01HL145386 · NHLBI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI CHAVARRO, JORGE EDUARDO, MANSON, JOANN ELISABETH · 2019 to 2025
$17.8M
Risk Factors for Hearing LossU01DC010811 · NIDCD · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI CURHAN, GARY C. · 2011 to 2018
$4.0M
What Causes Hearing Loss: Advancing the MethodsR01DC017717 · NIDCD · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Molin Wang · 2019 to 2026
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA176726NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL145386NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017717NIDCD NIH HHS U01 DC010811
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In epidemiological hearing studies, estimating the association between exposures and hearing loss using audiometrically-assessed hearing measurements is challenging due to the complex correlation structure in the clustered data, with clusters formed by the two ears of the same individual and the testing site and audiologist. We propose a linear mixed-effects model to take into account the multilevel correlation structures of the data. Both theoretically and in simulation studies, we compare single-ear linear regression models commonly used in published hearing loss studies with the proposed both-ears linear mixed models properly accounting for the multi-level correlations. Our findings include (1) when there are only participant-level covariates, the worse-ear linear regression models produce unbiased but typically less efficient estimators than the both-ear and average-ear approaches; (2) when there are ear-level confounders, the worse-ear method may lead to biased estimators and the average-ear method produces unbiased but typically less efficient estimators than the both-ear method; (3) the both-ear method may gain efficiency when additionally adjusting for testing sites and audiologists. As an illustrative example, we applied the single-ear and both-ear methods to assess aspirin-hearing association in the Nurses' Health Study II.

Indexed as

HearingHearing LossAspirinHumansAspirinaudiometryboth earsclustered datahearing data analysismixed-effects modelmulti-level clustersingle-ear method

Identifiers

PMID36125070
PMCPMC9588694
OpenAlexW4297855344

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.