Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36476294›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

Analysis of multiple-period group randomized trials: random coefficients model or repeated measures ANOVA?

Jonathan C Moyer, Patrick J Heagerty, David M Murray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Design and Analytic Methods to Evaluate Multilevel Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities: Rigorous Methods Are Available.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024
    Article
  3. 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.

Jonathan C MoyerOffice of Disease Prevention, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. jonathan.moyer@nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9275-6750
Patrick J HeagertyDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
David M MurrayOffice of Disease Prevention, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory-Coordinating Center (U24)U24AT009676 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LESLEY H CURTIS, Adrian Hernandez · 2017 to 2026
$21.5M
HEAL Collaboratory Resource Coordinating Center (PRISM) (U24): Bioethics SupplementU24AT010961 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CURTIS, LESLEY H, HERNANDEZ, ADRIAN · 2019 to 2021
$6.4M
NCCIH NIH HHS U24 AT009676NCCIH NIH HHS U24 AT010961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple-period parallel group randomized trials (GRTs) analyzed with linear mixed models can represent time in mean models as continuous or categorical. If time is continuous, random effects are traditionally group- and member-level deviations from condition-specific slopes and intercepts and are referred to as random coefficients (RC) analytic models. If time is categorical, random effects are traditionally group- and member-level deviations from time-specific condition means and are referred to as repeated measures ANOVA (RM-ANOVA) analytic models. Longstanding guidance recommends the use of RC over RM-ANOVA for parallel GRTs with more than two periods because RC exhibited nominal type I error rates for both time parameterizations while RM-ANOVA exhibited inflated type I error rates when applied to data generated using the RC model. However, this recommendation was developed assuming a variance components covariance matrix for the RM-ANOVA, using only cross-sectional data, and explicitly modeling time × group variation. Left unanswered were how well RM-ANOVA with an unstructured covariance would perform on data generated according to the RC mechanism, if similar patterns would be observed in cohort data, and the impact of not modeling time × group variation if such variation was present in the data-generating model.

methodsContinuous outcomes for cohort and cross-sectional parallel GRT data were simulated according to RM-ANOVA and RC mechanisms at five total time periods. All simulations assumed time × group variation. We varied the number of groups, group size, and intra-cluster correlation. Analytic models using RC, RM-ANOVA, RM-ANOVA with unstructured covariance, and a Saturated random effects structure were applied to the data. All analytic models specified time × group random effects. The analytic models were then reapplied without specifying random effects for time × group.

resultsResults indicated the RC and saturated analytic models maintained the nominal type I error rate in all data sets, RM-ANOVA with an unstructured covariance did not avoid type I error rate inflation when applied to cohort RC data, and analytic models omitting time-varying group random effects when such variation exists in the data were prone to substantial type I error inflation unless the residual error variance is high relative to the time × group variance.

conclusionThe time × group RC and saturated analytic models are recommended as the default for multiple period parallel GRTs.

Indexed as

Research DesignCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCluster randomized trialsGroup randomized trialsMultiple-periodRandom coefficientsRepeated measures

Identifiers

PMID36476294
PMCPMC9727985

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.