
doi: 10.1002/sim.1438
pmid: 12872299
AbstractEvaluation of the performance of a new diagnostic procedure with respect to a standard procedure arises frequently in practice. The response of interest, often in a dichotomous form, is measured twice, once with each procedure. The two procedures are administered to either two matched individuals, or when practical, to the same individual. A large sample test for matched‐pair data is the McNemar test. The main assumption of this test is independent paired responses; however, when more than one outcome from an individual is measured by each procedure, the data are clustered. Examples of such cases can be seen in dental and ophthalmology studies. Variance adjustment methods for the analysis of clustered matched‐pair data have been proposed; however, because of unequal cluster sizes, variability of correlation structures within a cluster (within paired responses in a cluster as well as between paired responses in a cluster), and unequal success probabilities among the clusters, the performances of some available methods are not consistent. This research proposes a simple adjustment to the McNemar test for the analysis of clustered matched‐pair data. Method of moments is used to calculate a consistent variance estimator. Using Monte Carlo simulation, the size and power of the proposed test are compared to those of two currently available methods. To illustrate practical application, clustered matched‐pair data from two clinical studies are analysed. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Clinical Trials as Topic, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Matched-Pair Analysis, Confidence Intervals, Cluster Analysis, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, United States
Clinical Trials as Topic, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Matched-Pair Analysis, Confidence Intervals, Cluster Analysis, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, United States
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 96 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
