Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40963176›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of anesthesiology2025

Analysis of interaction effect between within- and between-subject factors in repeated measures analysis of variance for longitudinal data.

Jonghae Kim, Jae Hong Park, Tae Kyun Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jonghae KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
Jae Hong ParkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.
Tae Kyun KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) is a specialized form of analysis of variance used for analyzing data involving repeated measurements, such as longitudinal data commonly encountered in anesthesia and pain medicine research. When data are collected at multiple time points across more than one group, RM-ANOVA evaluates the between-subject (group) effect, within-subject (time) effect, and interaction between these two factors. The group-by-time interaction effect indicates whether changes in an outcome variable over the study period differ among groups. Analyzing interaction contrasts between specific time points is particularly useful for identifying intervals where this interaction effect is significant. For instance, if an outcome variable is measured at multiple time points in two groups, the interaction contrast for any two time points represents the difference between the change in the outcome variable over that interval in one group and the corresponding change in the other group. An independent two-sample Student's t-test can then compare these differences to determine the statistical significance of the group-by-time interaction for the selected time points. Thus, incorporating interaction contrast analysis into RM-ANOVA enhances the interpretation of longitudinal data by pinpointing specific time intervals where significant interactions occur.

Indexed as

Analysis of VarianceData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLongitudinal StudiesTime FactorsAnalysis of varianceData interpretationLinear modelsLongitudinal studiesResearch designTime factors.

Identifiers

PMID40963176
PMCPMC12489589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.