PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8310187

A technique for summarizing longitudinal data.

D K Hathaway·R B D'Agostino
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many studies collect longitudinal data but do not use them efficiently. We propose a technique for reducing a set of longitudinal data into four common summary statistics together with time. These statistics can be used in place of the raw data in further analyses, for example in a regression analysis. Instead of arbitrarily choosing the summary statistics, we derive them mathematically, thus justifying their use. This simplifies the subsequent analyses, and also improves the interpretation of the results. An example from the Framingham Heart Study illustrates the procedure.

Explore related subjects

BiasChi-Square DistributionCoronary DiseaseData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsLongitudinal StudiesMathematicsPredictive Value of TestsRisk FactorsTime FactorsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D K Hathaway, R B D'Agostino. 1993-12-15. A technique for summarizing longitudinal data.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780122303

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

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↗