↓ Skip to main content

Single time point comparisons in longitudinal randomized controlled trials: power and bias in the presence of missing data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Single time point comparisons in longitudinal randomized controlled trials: power and bias in the presence of missing data
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0144-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin L. Ashbeck, Melanie L. Bell

Abstract

The primary analysis in a longitudinal randomized controlled trial is sometimes a comparison of arms at a single time point. While a two-sample t-test is often used, missing data are common in longitudinal studies and decreases power by reducing sample size. Mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) can test treatment effects at specific time points, have been shown to give unbiased estimates in certain missing data contexts, and may be more powerful than a two sample t-test. We conducted a simulation study to compare the performance of a complete-case t-test to a MMRM in terms of power and bias under different missing data mechanisms. Impact of within- and between-person variance, dropout mechanism, and variance-covariance structure were all considered. While both complete-case t-test and MMRM provided unbiased estimation of treatment differences when data were missing completely at random, MMRM yielded an absolute power gain of up to 12 %. The MMRM provided up to 25 % absolute increased power over the t-test when data were missing at random, as well as unbiased estimation. Investigators interested in single time point comparisons should use a MMRM with a contrast to gain power and unbiased estimation of treatment effects instead of a complete-case two sample t-test.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 30%
Mathematics 6 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 19 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,465,597
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,285
of 2,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,158
of 300,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,018 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 300,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.