Top

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2002 | Research article

Choosing marginal or random-effects models for longitudinal binary responses: application to self-reported disability among older persons

Authors: Isabelle Carrière, Jean Bouyer

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2002

Abstract

Background

Longitudinal studies with binary repeated outcomes are now widespread in epidemiology. The statistical analysis of these studies presents difficulties and standard methods are inadequate.

Methods

We consider strategies for modelling binary repeated responses and focus on two specific issues: the choice between marginal and random-effects models, and the choice of the time point origin. These issues are addressed using the example of self-reported disability in older women assessed annually for 6 years. The indicator of disability "needing help to go outdoors or home-confined" is used.

Results

In view of the observed associations between the responses for consecutive years, the baseline response was considered as a covariate. We compared the marginal and random-effects models first when only the influence of time and age is analysed and second when individual risk factors are studied in an aetiological perspective. There were substantial differences between the parameter estimates. They were due to differences between specific concepts related to the two models and the large between-individual heterogeneity revealed by the analysis.

Conclusions

A random-effects model appears to be most suitable for the analysis of self-reported disability in older women.

Available only for authorised users

Beckett LA, Brock DB, Lemke JH, et al: Analysis of change in self-reported physical function among older persons in four population studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1996, 143: 766-78.CrossRefPubMed

Hébert R, Brayne C, Spiegelhalter D: Factors associated with functional decline and improvement in a very elderly community-dwelling population. Am J Epidemiol. 1999, 150: 501-10.CrossRefPubMed

Dargent-Molina P, Favier F, Grandjean H, et al: Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996, 348: 145-49. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)01440-7.CrossRefPubMed

WHO/EUROPE, NCBS: Third consultation to develop common methods and instruments for Health interviews surveys. Voorburg, the Netherlands: WHO and Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics. 1992

Diggle PJ, Liang KY, Zeger SL: Analysis of longitudinal data. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford Science Publications. 1994

McCullagh P, Nelder JA: Generalized Linear Models – Second Edition. Boca Raton, London, New-York, Washington, D.C., Chapman & Hall/CRC. 1989

Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS: Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics. 1988, 44: 1049-60.CrossRefPubMed

Pendergast JF, Gange SJ, Newton MA, et al: A survey of methods for analyzing clustered binary response data. Int Stat Rev. 1996, 64: 89-118.CrossRef

Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD, Hauck WW: A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analysing correlated binary date. Int Stat Rev. 1991, 59: 25-36.CrossRef

10.

Liang KY, Zeger SL: Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986, 73: 13-22.CrossRef

11.

Albert PS: Longitudinal data analysis (repeated measures) in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999, 18: 1707-32. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990715)18:13<1707::AID-SIM138>3.0.CO;2-H.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Pinheiro JC, Bates DM: Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. 1995, 4: 12-35.

13.

Little RJA, Rubin DB: Statistical analysis with missing data. New-York: Wiley and Sons. 1987

14.

Robins JM, Rotnitzky A, Zhao LP: Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in presence of missing data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995, 90: 106-121.CrossRef

15.

Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Michiels B, et al: Analysis of incomplete public health data. Rev Epidémiol Santé Publique. 1999, 47: 499-14.PubMed

16.

Littell RC, Pendergast J, Natarajan R: Modelling covariance structure in the analysis of repeated measures data. Stat Med. 2000, 19: 1793-1819. 10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1793::AID-SIM482>3.3.CO;2-H.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Zeger SL, Karim MR: Generalized linear models with random effects: A Gibbs sampling approach. J Am Stat Assoc. 1991, 86: 79-86.CrossRef

18.

Breslow NE, Clayton DG: Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993, 88: 9-25.

19.

Wolfinger R, O'Connell M: Generalized linear mixed models: a pseudo-likelihood approach. J Statist Comput Simul. 1993, 48: 233-43.CrossRef

20.

Breslow NE, Lin X: Bias correction in generalised linear models with a single component of dispersion. Biometrika. 1995, 82: 81-91.CrossRef

21.

Rodriguez G., Goldman N: An assessment of estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary responses. Journal of Royal Statistical Society. 1995, A158: 73-89.CrossRef

22.

Lindsey JK, Lambert P: On the appropriateness of marginal models for repeated measurements in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998, 17: 447-69. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980228)17:4<447::AID-SIM752>3.3.CO;2-7.CrossRefPubMed

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/2/15/prepub

Title: Choosing marginal or random-effects models for longitudinal binary responses: application to self-reported disability among older persons
Authors: Isabelle Carrière
Jean Bouyer
Publication date: 01-12-2002
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2002
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-15

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Choosing marginal or random-effects models for longitudinal binary responses: application to self-reported disability among older persons

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2002

The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: If A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C?

Are the Cochrane group registers comprehensive? A case study of Japanese psychiatry trials

Erratum to: Sample size requirements for case-control study designs

Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?

Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy

Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines