Skip to main content

To condition or not condition? Analysing 'change' in longitudinal randomised controlled trials.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Coffman, CJ; Edelman, D; Woolson, RF
Published in: BMJ Open
December 30, 2016

OBJECTIVE: The statistical analysis for a 2-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a baseline outcome followed by a few assessments at fixed follow-up times typically invokes traditional analytic methods (eg, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), longitudinal data analysis (LDA)). 'Constrained' longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) is a well-established unconditional technique that constrains means of baseline to be equal between arms. We use an analysis of fasting lipid profiles from the Group Medical Clinics (GMC) longitudinal RCT on patients with diabetes to illustrate applications of ANCOVA, LDA and cLDA to demonstrate theoretical concepts of these methods including the impact of missing data. METHODS: For the analysis of the illustrated example, all models were fit using linear mixed models to participants with only complete data and to participants using all available data. RESULTS: With complete data (n=195), 95% CI coverage are equivalent for ANCOVA and cLDA with an estimated 11.2 mg/dL (95% CI -19.2 to -3.3; p=0.006) lower mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in GMC compared with usual care. With all available data (n=233), applying the cLDA model yielded an LDL improvement of 8.9 mg/dL (95% CI -16.7 to -1.0; p=0.03) for GMC compared with usual care. The less efficient, LDA analysis yielded an LDL improvement of 7.2 mg/dL (95% CI -17.2 to 2.8; p=0.15) for GMC compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Under reasonable missing data assumptions, cLDA will yield efficient treatment effect estimates and robust inferential statistics. It may be regarded as the method of choice over ANCOVA and LDA.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

BMJ Open

DOI

EISSN

2044-6055

Publication Date

December 30, 2016

Volume

6

Issue

12

Start / End Page

e013096

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Treatment Outcome
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Male
  • Lipoproteins, LDL
  • Lipids
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Fasting
  • Diabetes Mellitus
  • Diabetes Complications
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Coffman, C. J., Edelman, D., & Woolson, R. F. (2016). To condition or not condition? Analysing 'change' in longitudinal randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open, 6(12), e013096. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013096
Coffman, Cynthia J., David Edelman, and Robert F. Woolson. “To condition or not condition? Analysing 'change' in longitudinal randomised controlled trials.BMJ Open 6, no. 12 (December 30, 2016): e013096. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013096.
Coffman CJ, Edelman D, Woolson RF. To condition or not condition? Analysing 'change' in longitudinal randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 30;6(12):e013096.
Coffman, Cynthia J., et al. “To condition or not condition? Analysing 'change' in longitudinal randomised controlled trials.BMJ Open, vol. 6, no. 12, Dec. 2016, p. e013096. Pubmed, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013096.
Coffman CJ, Edelman D, Woolson RF. To condition or not condition? Analysing 'change' in longitudinal randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 30;6(12):e013096.

Published In

BMJ Open

DOI

EISSN

2044-6055

Publication Date

December 30, 2016

Volume

6

Issue

12

Start / End Page

e013096

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Treatment Outcome
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Male
  • Lipoproteins, LDL
  • Lipids
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Fasting
  • Diabetes Mellitus
  • Diabetes Complications