Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Unifying the analysis of continuous and categorical measures of weight loss and incorporating group effect: a secondary re-analysis of a large cluster randomized clinical trial using Bayesian approach

Authors: Fengming Tang, Christie A. Befort, Jo Wick, Byron J. Gajewski

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Although frequentist paradigm has been the predominant approach to clinical studies for decades, some limitations associated with the frequentist null hypothesis significance testing have been recognized. Bayesian approaches can provide additional insights into data interpretation and inference by deriving posterior distributions of model parameters reflecting the clinical interest. In this article, we sought to demonstrate how Bayesian approaches can improve the data interpretation by reanalyzing the Rural Engagement in Primary Care for Optimizing Weight Reduction (REPOWER).

Methods

REPOWER is a cluster randomized clinical trial comparing three care delivery models: in-clinic individual visits, in-clinic group visits, and phone-based group visits. The primary endpoint was weight loss at 24 months and the secondary endpoints included the proportions of achieving 5 and 10% weight loss at 24 months. We reanalyzed the data using a three-level Bayesian hierarchical model. The posterior distributions of weight loss at 24 months for each arm were obtained using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. We then estimated the probability of having a higher weight loss and the probability of having greater proportion achieving 5 and 10% weight loss between groups. Additionally, a four-level hierarchical model was used to assess the partially nested intervention group effect which was not investigated in the original REPOWER analyses.

Results

The Bayesian analyses estimated 99.5% probability that in-clinic group visits, compared with in-clinic individual visits, resulted in a higher percent weight loss (posterior mean difference: 1.8%[95% CrI: 0.5,3.2%]), a greater probability of achieving 5% threshold (posterior mean difference: 9.2% [95% CrI: 2.4, 16.0%]) and 10% threshold (posterior mean difference: 6.6% [95% CrI: 1.7, 11.5%]). The phone-based group visits had similar result. We also concluded that including intervention group did not impact model fit significantly.

Conclusions

We unified the analyses of continuous (the primary endpoint) and categorical measures (the secondary endpoints) of weight loss with one single Bayesian hierarchical model. This approach gained statistical power for the dichotomized endpoints by leveraging the information in the continuous data. Furthermore, the Bayesian analysis enabled additional insights into data interpretation and inference by providing posterior distributions for parameters of interest and posterior probabilities of different hypotheses that were not available with the frequentist approach.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02456636; date of registry: May 28, 2015.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Wasserstein R, Lazar N. The ASA’s statement on P values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70(2):129–33.CrossRef Wasserstein R, Lazar N. The ASA’s statement on P values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70(2):129–33.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Befort CA, VanWormer JJ, Desouza C, Ellerbeck EF, Gajewski B, Kimminau KS, et al. Effect of behavioral therapy with in-clinic or telephone group visits vs in-clinic individual visits on weight loss among patients with obesity in rural clinical practice. JAMA. 2021;325(4):363–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Befort CA, VanWormer JJ, Desouza C, Ellerbeck EF, Gajewski B, Kimminau KS, et al. Effect of behavioral therapy with in-clinic or telephone group visits vs in-clinic individual visits on weight loss among patients with obesity in rural clinical practice. JAMA. 2021;325(4):363–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Watanabe S. A widely applicable Bayesian information criterion. J Mach Learn Res. 2013;14:867–97. Watanabe S. A widely applicable Bayesian information criterion. J Mach Learn Res. 2013;14:867–97.
10.
go back to reference Vehtari A, Gelman A, Gabry J. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat Comput. 2017;27(5):1413–32.CrossRef Vehtari A, Gelman A, Gabry J. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat Comput. 2017;27(5):1413–32.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Betancourt M. A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. arXiv 2017; arXiv:1701.02434. Columbia University, N Y. Betancourt M. A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. arXiv 2017; arXiv:1701.02434. Columbia University, N Y.
12.
14.
go back to reference Vehtari A, Gelman A, Simpson D, Carpenter B, Bürkner P. Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved R-hat for assessing convergence of MCMC. arXiv 2019; arXiv:1903.08008. Vehtari A, Gelman A, Simpson D, Carpenter B, Bürkner P. Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved R-hat for assessing convergence of MCMC. arXiv 2019; arXiv:1903.08008.
15.
go back to reference Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2006;332:1080.CrossRef Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2006;332:1080.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Deyi BA, Kosinski AS, Snapinn SM. Power considerations when a continuous outcome variable is dichotomized. J Biopharm Stat. 1998;8:337–52.CrossRefPubMed Deyi BA, Kosinski AS, Snapinn SM. Power considerations when a continuous outcome variable is dichotomized. J Biopharm Stat. 1998;8:337–52.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Peacock JL, et al. Dichotomising continuous data while retaining statistical power using a distributional approach. Stat Med. 2012;31:3089–103.CrossRefPubMed Peacock JL, et al. Dichotomising continuous data while retaining statistical power using a distributional approach. Stat Med. 2012;31:3089–103.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Unifying the analysis of continuous and categorical measures of weight loss and incorporating group effect: a secondary re-analysis of a large cluster randomized clinical trial using Bayesian approach
Authors
Fengming Tang
Christie A. Befort
Jo Wick
Byron J. Gajewski
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01499-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2022 Go to the issue