Comparing Generalized Estimating Equation and Linear Mixed Effects Model for Estimating Marginal Association with Bivariate Continuous Outcomes. (4th May 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Mingyi; Kong, Xiangrong
• Is Part Of: Ophthalmic epidemiology. Volume 30:Number 3(2023)
• Page Start: 307
• Page End: 316
• Publication Date: 2023-05-04
• Subjects: structure-function -- correlated data analysis -- clinical trial design -- FIGHT-RP study -- retinitis pigmentosa; Blindness -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Eye -- Diseases -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Ophthalmology -- Periodicals; 614.5997
• DOI: 10.1080/09286586.2022.2098984
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0928-6586

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Purpose: Both linear regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and linear mixed-effects models (LMEM) can be used to estimate the marginal association of an exposure with clustered continuous outcomes. This study compares their performance for bivariate continuous outcomes which are common in eye studies. Methods: Parametric and non-parametric simulations were used to compare the GEE models including independent, exchangeable, and unstructured working correlation structures and LMEM including random intercept only and random intercept and slope models in R and SAS. Data generation referenced the data distributions from a real-world study for estimating ocular structure-visual function relationships in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Results: From both parametric and non-parametric simulations, comparing the random intercept LMEM and GEE exchangeable model, bias was similar; coverage probability of the 95% confidence interval (CI) from the random intercept LMEM was often closer to 95%, especially when the sample size was small; the power for testing the association of the exposure was higher from the GEE exchangeable model, but its type-I error rate might be inflated especially when the sample size was small. The type-I error rate from the random intercept LMEM was closer to 0.05, but it might be under 0.05 and coverage probability might be over 95%. The GEE independent model performed worst and the LMEM with both random intercept and slope might not converge. Conclusion: To estimate marginal exposure-outcome association with bivariate continuous outcomes, the random intercept LMEM may be preferred. It has the best coverage probability of 95% CI and is the only model with correct type-I error rates in this study. However, it may have low power and overly wide CI in studies with small sample size or low inter-eye correlation.