Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Subgroup analysis #239

Open
nociale opened this issue Oct 25, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Subgroup analysis #239

nociale opened this issue Oct 25, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
To be evaluated issues that must be discussed whether/how they have to be implemented

Comments

@nociale
Copy link
Collaborator

nociale commented Oct 25, 2021

Does rbmi already support subgroup analysis?

What is the best way of performing subgroup analysis with rbmi?

If one would like to basically perform a (baseline) subgroup analysis (let's see by gender) of the primary analysis. Is that correct to consider a three-way interaction treatment-visit-gender in the imputation step and a two way interaction 'treatment-gender' in the 'analysis' (ANCOVA) step? Would, in this case, the output from analysis() contain the treatment effect with each subgroup (and would then these estimates be pooled in the pool() function)?

Once this is solved, should we add an example in the advanced vignette?

@nociale nociale added the To be evaluated issues that must be discussed whether/how they have to be implemented label Nov 9, 2021
@wolbersm
Copy link
Collaborator

wolbersm commented Dec 1, 2021

Hi @nociale

Yes, I think so:
If we call the subgrouping variable s, then I think this would mean:
Imputation model: y~ <usual adjustment for baseline value etc.> + visit*treatment*s [triple interaction]
Analysis model: y[visit] ~ <baseline value + possible other baseline covariates> + treatment*s

I also think that your for modifying regarding analysis() and pool() function make sense.

One additional topic is that subgroup analyses often include interaction test p-values for the treatment*s interactions and in case s has >2 levels, the resulting test statistics is a chi-squared statistics rather than a Z statistics (estimate/SE) which would need some extra thought regarding pooling.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
To be evaluated issues that must be discussed whether/how they have to be implemented
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants