Abstract

BackgroundReporting of absolute risk difference (RD) is recommended for clinical and epidemiological prospective studies. In analyses of multicenter studies, adjustment for center is necessary when randomization is stratified by center or when there is large variation in patients outcomes across centers. While regression methods are used to estimate RD adjusted for baseline predictors and clustering, no formal evaluation of their performance has been previously conducted.MethodsWe performed a simulation study to evaluate 6 regression methods fitted under a generalized estimating equation framework: binomial identity, Poisson identity, Normal identity, log binomial, log Poisson, and logistic regression model. We compared the model estimates to unadjusted estimates. We varied the true response function (identity or log), number of subjects per center, true risk difference, control outcome rate, effect of baseline predictor, and intracenter correlation. We compared the models in terms of convergence, absolute bias and coverage of 95 % confidence intervals for RD.ResultsThe 6 models performed very similar to each other for the majority of scenarios. However, the log binomial model did not converge for a large portion of the scenarios including a baseline predictor. In scenarios with outcome rate close to the parameter boundary, the binomial and Poisson identity models had the best performance, but differences from other models were negligible. The unadjusted method introduced little bias to the RD estimates, but its coverage was larger than the nominal value in some scenarios with an identity response. Under the log response, coverage from the unadjusted method was well below the nominal value (<80 %) for some scenarios.ConclusionsWe recommend the use of a binomial or Poisson GEE model with identity link to estimate RD for correlated binary outcome data. If these models fail to run, then either a logistic regression, log Poisson regression, or linear regression GEE model can be used.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0217-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Reporting of absolute risk difference (RD) is recommended for clinical and epidemiological prospective studies

  • We report results of a simulation study investigating performance measures of six models for calculating RD with correlated binary data arising from a multicenter trial design

  • True identity link function Scenarios without a baseline covariate All models ran without errors

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Reporting of absolute risk difference (RD) is recommended for clinical and epidemiological prospective studies. For clinicians considering the likely benefits of a treatment for individual patients, the most relevant measure of treatment effect is the absolute difference in benefit or harm from two treatment options [5,6,7]. For binary outcomes, this corresponds to the absolute risk difference (RD) or its reciprocal, the number needed to treat [2, 5,6,7]. The CONSORT statement recommends reporting of both RD and RR for all trials with binary outcomes [11]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call