PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10707923

Problems due to small samples and sparse data in conditional logistic regression analysis.

Abstract

Conditional logistic regression was developed to avoid "sparse-data" biases that can arise in ordinary logistic regression analysis. Nonetheless, it is a large-sample method that can exhibit considerable bias when certain types of matched sets are infrequent or when the model contains too many parameters. Sparse-data bias can cause misleading inferences about confounding, effect modification, dose response, and induction periods, and can interact with other biases. In this paper, the authors describe these problems in the context of matched case-control analysis and provide examples from a study of electrical wiring and childhood leukemia and a study of diet and glioma. The same problems can arise in any likelihood-based analysis, including ordinary logistic regression. The problems can be detected by careful inspection of data and by examining the sensitivity of estimates to category boundaries, variables in the model, and transformations of those variables. One can also apply various bias corrections or turn to methods less sensitive to sparse data than conditional likelihood, such as Bayesian and empirical-Bayes (hierarchical regression) methods.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Greenland, J A Schwartzbaum, W D Finkle. 2000-03-01. Problems due to small samples and sparse data in conditional logistic regression analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010240

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

Unequal group sizes in randomised trials: guarding against guessing.

We cringe at the pervasive notion that a randomised trial needs to yield equal sample sizes in the comparison groups. Unfortunately, that conceptual misunderstanding can lead to bias by investigators who force equality, especially if by non-scientific means. In simple, unrestricted, randomised trials (analogous to repeated coin-tossing), the sizes of groups should indicate random variation. In other words, some discrepancy between the numbers in the comparison groups would be expected. The appeal of equal group sizes in a simple randomised controlled trial is cosmetic, not scientific. Moreover, other randomisation schemes, termed restricted randomisation, force equality by departing from simple randomisation. Forcing equal group sizes, however, potentially harms the unpredictability of treatment assignments, especially when using permuted-block randomisation in non-double-blinded trials. Diminished unpredictability can allow bias to creep into a trial. Overall, investigators underuse simple randomisation and overuse fixed-block randomisation. For non-double-blinded trials larger than 200 participants, investigators should use simple randomisation more often and accept moderate disparities in group sizes. Such unpredictability reflects the essence of randomness. We endorse the generation of mildly unequal group sizes and encourage an appreciation of such inequalities. For non-double-blinded randomised controlled trials with a sample size of less than 200 overall or within any principal stratum or subgroup, urn randomisation enhances unpredictability compared with blocking. A simpler alternative, our mixed randomisation approach, attains unpredictability within the context of the currently understood simple randomisation and permuted-block methods. Simple randomisation contributes the unpredictability whereas permuted-block randomisation contributes the balance, but avoids the perfect balance that can result in selection bias.

Bias↗