ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Assessing non-inferiority for binary matched-pairs data with missing values: a powerful and flexible GEE approach based on the risk difference.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical studies often aim to test the non-inferiority of a treatment compared to an alternative intervention with binary matched-pairs data. These studies are often planned with methods for completely observed pairs only. However, if missingness is more frequent than expected or is anticipated in the planning phase, methods are needed that allow the inclusion of partially observed pairs to improve statistical power.
methodsWe propose a flexible generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach to estimate confidence intervals for the risk difference, which accommodates partially observed pairs. Using simulated data, we compare this approach to alternative methods for completely observed pairs only and to those that also include pairs with missing observations. Additionally, we reconsider the study sample size calculation by applying these methods to a study with binary matched-pairs setting.
resultsIn moderate to large sample sizes, the proposed GEE approach performs similarly to alternative methods for completely observed pairs only. It even results in a higher power and narrower interval widths in scenarios with missing data and where missingness follows a missing (completely) at random (MCAR / MAR) mechanism. The GEE approach is also non-inferior to alternative methods, such as multiple imputation or confidence intervals explicitly developed for missing data settings. Reconsidering the sample size calculation for an observational study, our proposed approach leads to a considerably smaller sample size than the alternative methods.
conclusionOur results indicate that the proposed GEE approach is a powerful alternative to existing methods and can be used for testing non-inferiority, even if the initial sample size calculation was based on a different statistical method. Furthermore, it increases the analytical flexibility by allowing the inclusion of additional covariates, in contrast to other methods.
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.