Evaluation of the accuracy of multilevel analysis parameter estimates for intra-cluster correlation in correlated binary data

Many studies in biostatistics deal with binary data. Some of these studies involve correlated observations, which can complicate the analysis of the resulting data. Studies of this kind typically arise when a high degree of commonality exists between test subjects. If there exists a natural hierarchy in the data, multilevel analysis is an appropriate tool for the analysis. Two examples are the measurements on identical twins, or the study of symmetrical organs or appendages such as in the case of ophthalmic studies. Although this type of matching appears ideal for the purposes of comparison, analysis of the resulting data while ignoring the effect of intra-cluster correlation has been shown to produce biased results.^ This paper will explore the use of multilevel modeling of simulated binary data with predetermined levels of correlation. Data will be generated using the Beta-Binomial method with varying degrees of correlation between the lower level observations. The data will be analyzed using the multilevel software package MlwiN (Woodhouse, et al, 1995). Comparisons between the specified intra-cluster correlation of these data and the estimated correlations, using multilevel analysis, will be used to examine the accuracy of this technique in analyzing this type of data. ^

Outcome-based adaptive randomization for binary data in clinical trials---Compare and contrast

Monte Carlo simulation has been conducted to investigate parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in some well known adaptive randomization procedures. The four urn models studied are Randomized Play-the-Winner (RPW), Randomized Pôlya Urn (RPU), Birth and Death Urn with Immigration (BDUI), and Drop-the-Loses Urn (DL). Two sequential estimation methods, the sequential maximum likelihood estimation (SMLE) and the doubly adaptive biased coin design (DABC), are simulated at three optimal allocation targets that minimize the expected number of failures under the assumption of constant variance of simple difference (RSIHR), relative risk (ORR), and odds ratio (OOR) respectively. Log likelihood ratio test and three Wald-type tests (simple difference, log of relative risk, log of odds ratio) are compared in different adaptive procedures. ^ Simulation results indicates that although RPW is slightly better in assigning more patients to the superior treatment, the DL method is considerably less variable and the test statistics have better normality. When compared with SMLE, DABC has slightly higher overall response rate with lower variance, but has larger bias and variance in parameter estimation. Additionally, the test statistics in SMLE have better normality and lower type I error rate, and the power of hypothesis testing is more comparable with the equal randomization. Usually, RSIHR has the highest power among the 3 optimal allocation ratios. However, the ORR allocation has better power and lower type I error rate when the log of relative risk is the test statistics. The number of expected failures in ORR is smaller than RSIHR. It is also shown that the simple difference of response rates has the worst normality among all 4 test statistics. The power of hypothesis test is always inflated when simple difference is used. On the other hand, the normality of the log likelihood ratio test statistics is robust against the change of adaptive randomization procedures. ^