↓ Skip to main content

Reference effect measures for quantifying, comparing and visualizing variation from random and fixed effects in non-normal multilevel models, with applications to site variation in medical procedure…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reference effect measures for quantifying, comparing and visualizing variation from random and fixed effects in non-normal multilevel models, with applications to site variation in medical procedure use and outcomes
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0517-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas J. Glorioso, Gary K. Grunwald, P. Michael Ho, Thomas M. Maddox

Abstract

Multilevel models for non-normal outcomes are widely used in medical and health sciences research. While methods for interpreting fixed effects are well-developed, methods to quantify and interpret random cluster variation and compare it with other sources of variation are less established. Random cluster variation, sometimes referred to as general contextual effects (GCE), may be the main focus of a study; therefore, easily interpretable methods are needed to quantify GCE. We propose a Reference Effect Measure (REM) approach to 1) quantify GCE and compare it to individual subject and cluster covariate effects, and 2) quantify relative magnitudes of GCE and variation from sets of measured factors. To illustrate REM, we consider a two-level mixed logistic model with patients clustered within hospitals and a random intercept for hospitals. We compare patients at hospitals at given percentiles of the estimated random effect distribution to patients at a median or 'reference' hospital. These estimates are then compared numerically and graphically to individual fixed effects to quantify GCE in the context of effects of other measured variables (aim 1). We then extend this approach by comparing variation from the random effect distribution to variation from sets of fixed effects to understand their magnitudes relative to overall outcome variation (aim 2). Using an example of initiation of rhythm control treatment in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients within the Veterans Affairs (VA), we use REM to demonstrate that random variation across hospitals (GCE) in initiation of treatment is substantially greater than that due to most individual patient factors, and explains at least as much variation in treatment initiation as do all patient factors combined. These results are contrasted with a relatively small GCE compared with patient factors in 1 year mortality following hospitalization for AF patients. REM provides a means of quantifying random effect variation (GCE) with multilevel data and can be used to explore drivers of outcome variation. This method is easily interpretable and can be presented visually. REM offers a simple, interpretable approach for evaluating questions of growing importance in the study of health care systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2021.
All research outputs
#15,539,088
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,527
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,171
of 327,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#37
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.