Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We discuss several aspects of multiple inference in longitudinal settings, focusing on many-to-one and all-pairwise comparisons of (a) treatment groups simultaneously at several points in time, or (b) time points simultaneously for several treatments. We assume a continuous endpoint that is measured repeatedly over time and contrast two basic modeling strategies: fitting a joint model across all occasions (with random effects and/or some residual covariance structure to account for heteroscedasticity and serial dependence), and a novel approach combining a set of simple marginal, i.e. occasion-specific models. Upon parameter and covariance estimation with either modeling approach, we employ a variant of multiple contrast tests that acknowledges correlation between time points and test statistics. This method provides simultaneous confidence intervals and adjusted p-values for elementary hypotheses as well as a global test decision. We compare via simulation the powers of multiple contrast tests based on a joint model and multiple marginal models, respectively, and quantify the benefit of incorporating longitudinal correlation, i.e. the advantage over Bonferroni. Practical application is illustrated with data from a clinical trial on bradykinin receptor antagonism.

Keywords

Longitudinal data repeated measurements generalized least squares linear mixed-effects model AICc

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Verbeke

Molenberghs

. Linear mixed models for longitudinal data, New York: Springer, 2000.

Davidian

Giltinan

. Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data, Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1995.

Phillips

Fletcher

Atkinson

et al.

Multiplicity: discussion points from the statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry multiplicity expert group. Pharm Stat 2013; 12: 255–259.

Dunnett

. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 1955; 50: 1096–1121.

Tukey

The problem of multiple comparisons. In: Braun

(eds). The collected works of John W. Tukey 1994; Volume VIIINew York: Chapman & Hall, pp. 1–300.

Hoffman

Recknor

Lee

. Overall type I error rate and power of multiple Dunnett’s tests on rodent body weights in toxicology studies. J Biopharm Stat 2008; 18: 883–900.

Liu

Cripe

Kim

. Statistical issues in longitudinal data analysis for treatment efficacy studies in the biomedical sciences. Mol Ther 2010; 18: 1724–1730.

Mukerjee

Robertson

Wright

. Comparison of several treatments with a control using multiple contrasts. J Am Stat Assoc 1987; 82: 902–910.

Bretz

Genz

Hothorn

. On the numerical availability of multiple comparison procedures. Biometrical J 2001; 43: 645–656.

10.

Hothorn

Bretz

Westfall

. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J 2008; 50: 346–363.

11.

Hasler

Hothorn

. A Dunnett-type procedure for multiple endpoints. Int J Biostat 2011; 7: article 3–article 3.

12.

Hasler

Hothorn

. A multivariate Williams-type trend procedure. Stat Biopharm Res 2012; 4: 57–65.

13.

Hasler

. Multiple contrast tests for multiple endpoints in the presence of heteroscedasticity. Int J Biostat 2014; 10: 17–28.

14.

Hasler

. Multiple contrasts for repeated measures. Int J Biostat 2013; 9: 1–13.

15.

Laird

Ware

. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 1982; 38: 963–974.

16.

McCulloch

Searle

. Generalized, linear, and mixed models, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.

17.

Cnaan

Laird

Slasor

. Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data. Stat Med 1997; 16: 2349–2380.

18.

Cheng

Edwards

Maldonado-Molina

et al.

Real longitudinal data analysis for real people: building a good enough mixed model. Stat Med 2010; 29: 504–520.

19.

Akaike

. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE T Automat Contr 1974; 19: 716–723.

20.

Kullback

Leibler

. On information and sufficiency. Ann Math Stat 1951; 22: 79–86.

21.

Sugiura

. Further analysis of the data by Akaike’s information criterion and the finite corrections. Commun Stat-Theor M 1978; 7: 13–26.

22.

Hurvich

Tsai

. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 1989; 76: 297–307.

23.

Burnham

Anderson

. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2002.

24.

Jennrich

Schluchter

. Unbalanced repeated-measures models with structured covariance matrices. Biometrics 1986; 42: 805–820.

25.

Wolfinger

. Heterogeneous variance: covariance structures for repeated measures. J Agr Biol Envir St 1996; 1: 205–230.

26.

Mehrotra

. Specification of covariance structure in longitudinal data analysis for randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 2010; 29: 474–488.

27.

Littell

Pendergast

Natarajan

. Modelling covariance structure in the analysis of repeated measures data. Stat Med 2000; 19: 1793–1819.

28.

Schielzeth

Forstmeier

. Conclusions beyond support: overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behav Ecol 2009; 20: 416–420.

29.

Gurka

Edwards

Muller

. Avoiding bias in mixed model inference for fixed effects. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2696–2707.

30.

Wolfinger

. Covariance structure selection in general mixed models. Commun Stat-Simul C 1993; 22: 1079–1106.

31.

Keselman

Algina

Kowalchuk

et al.

A comparison of two approaches for selecting covariance structures in the analysis of repeated measurements. Commun Stat-Simul C 1998; 27: 591–604.

32.

Gurka

. Selecting the best linear mixed model under REML. Am Stat 2006; 60: 19–26.

33.

Pipper

Ritz

Bisgaard

. A versatile method for confirmatory evaluation of the effects of a covariate in multiple models. J Roy Stat Soc C-App 2012; 61: 315–326.

34.

Hothorn

Bretz

Westfall

et al.

multcomp: simultaneous inference in general parametric models, R package version 1.4-0 2015.

35.

Bretz

Hothorn

Westfall

. Multiple comparisons using R, Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2010.

36.

Kenward

Roger

. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 1997; 53: 983–997.

37.

Faes

Molenberghs

Aerts

et al.

The effective sample size and an alternative small-sample degrees-of-freedom method. Am Stat 2009; 63: 389–399.

38.

Molenberghs

Kenward

. Missing data in clinical studies, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

39.

R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015.

40.

Balaguer

Byrne

et al.

Contribution of endogeneous bradykinin to fibrinolysis, inflammation, and blood product transfusion following cardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013; 93: 326–334.

41.

Konietschke

Bathke

Hothorn

et al.

Testing and estimation of purely nonparametric effects in repeated measures designs. Comput Stat Data Anal 2010; 54: 1895–1905.

42.

Konietschke

Gel

Brunner

On multiple contrast tests and simultaneous confidence intervals in high-dimensional repeated measures designs. In: Ahmed

(eds). Perspectives on big data analysis: methodologies and applications, Montréal: Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, 2014, pp. 109–124.

43.

Stone

Chuang-Stein

. Strong control over multiple endpoints: are we adding value to the assessment of medicines? Pharm Stat 2013; 12: 189–191.

44.

Williams

. A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics 1971; 27: 103–117.

45.

Williams

. The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics 1972; 28: 519–531.

46.

Bretz

. An extension of the Williams trend test to general unbalanced linear models. Comput Stat Data Anal 2006; 50: 1735–1748.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB

Simultaneous comparisons of treatments at multiple time points: Combined marginal models versus joint modeling

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material