Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37752579›Full record

Trial reportTrials2023

Evaluation of negative binomial and zero-inflated negative binomial models for the analysis of zero-inflated count data: application to the telemedicine for children with medical complexity trial.

Kyung Hyun Lee, Claudia Pedroza, Elenir B C Avritscher, Ricardo A Mosquera, Jon E Tyson

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bayesian Multivariate Modelling of Lone Star (International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Socioeconomic differences in labour market attachment after breast cancer: a population-based matched cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Kyung Hyun LeeThe Institute for Clinical Research and Learning Health Care, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. Kyung.Hyun.Lee@uth.tmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-5814
Claudia PedrozaThe Institute for Clinical Research and Learning Health Care, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Elenir B C AvritscherThe Institute for Clinical Research and Learning Health Care, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Ricardo A MosqueraThe Institute for Clinical Research and Learning Health Care, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Jon E TysonThe Institute for Clinical Research and Learning Health Care, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo characteristics of commonly used outcomes in medical research are zero inflation and non-negative integers; examples include the number of hospital admissions or emergency department visits, where the majority of patients will have zero counts. Zero-inflated regression models were devised to analyze this type of data. However, the performance of zero-inflated regression models or the properties of data best suited for these analyses have not been thoroughly investigated.

methodsWe conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of two generalized linear models, negative binomial and zero-inflated negative binomial, for analyzing zero-inflated count data. Simulation scenarios assumed a randomized controlled trial design and varied the true underlying distribution, sample size, and rate of zero inflation. We compared the models in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage. Additionally, we used logistic regression to determine which data properties are most important for predicting the best-fitting model.

resultsWe first found that, regardless of the rate of zero inflation, there was little difference between the conventional negative binomial and its zero-inflated counterpart in terms of bias of the marginal treatment group coefficient. Second, even when the outcome was simulated from a zero-inflated distribution, a negative binomial model was favored above its ZI counterpart in terms of the Akaike Information Criterion. Third, the mean and skewness of the non-zero part of the data were stronger predictors of model preference than the percentage of zero counts. These results were not affected by the sample size, which ranged from 60 to 800.

conclusionsWe recommend that the rate of zero inflation and overdispersion in the outcome should not be the sole and main justification for choosing zero-inflated regression models. Investigators should also consider other data characteristics when choosing a model for count data. In addition, if the performance of the NB and ZINB regression models is reasonably comparable even with ZI outcomes, we advocate the use of the NB regression model due to its clear and straightforward interpretation of the results.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalTelemedicineBiasChildComputer SimulationHumansLinear ModelsCount dataNegative binomialTelemedicineZero-inflated regression model

Identifiers

PMID37752579
PMCPMC10523642

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.