Search

Background: Outcome measures that are count variables with excessive zeros are common in health behaviors research. Examples include the number of standard drinks consumed or alcohol-related problems experienced over time. There is a lack of empirical data about the relative performance of prevailing statistical models for assessing the efficacy of interventions when outcomes are zero-inflated, particularly compared with recently developed marginalized count regression approaches for such data., Methods: The current simulation study examined five commonly used approaches for analyzing count outcomes, including two linear models (with outcomes on raw and log-transformed scales, respectively) and three prevailing count distribution-based models (ie, Poisson, negative binomial, and zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) models). We also considered the marginalized zero-inflated Poisson (MZIP) model, a novel alternative that estimates the overall effects on the population mean while adjusting for zero-inflation. Motivated by alcohol misuse prevention trials, extensive simulations were conducted to evaluate and compare the statistical power and Type I error rate of the statistical models and approaches across data conditions that varied in sample size ( N = 100 $$ N=100 $$ to 500), zero rate (0.2 to 0.8), and intervention effect sizes., Results: Under zero-inflation, the Poisson model failed to control the Type I error rate, resulting in higher than expected false positive results. When the intervention effects on the zero (vs. non-zero) and count parts were in the same direction, the MZIP model had the highest statistical power, followed by the linear model with outcomes on the raw scale, negative binomial model, and ZIP model. The performance of the linear model with a log-transformed outcome variable was unsatisfactory., Conclusions: The MZIP model demonstrated better statistical properties in detecting true intervention effects and controlling false positive results for zero-inflated count outcomes. This MZIP model may serve as an appealing analytical approach to evaluating overall intervention effects in studies with count outcomes marked by excessive zeros., (© 2024 The Author(s). Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) is an important methodology in intervention research because it (a) increases accuracy and precision of estimates, (b) allows researchers to investigate mediators and moderators of treatment effects, and (c) makes use of extant data. IPD meta-analysis can be conducted either via a one-step approach that uses data from all studies simultaneously, or a two-step approach, which aggregates data for each study and then combines them in a traditional meta-analysis model. Unfortunately, there are no evidence-based guidelines for how best to approach IPD meta-analysis for count outcomes with many zeroes, such as alcohol use. We used simulation to compare the performance of four hurdle models (3 one-step and 1 two-step models) for zero-inflated count IPD, under realistic data conditions. Overall, all models yielded adequate coverage and bias for the treatment effect in the count portion of the model, across all data conditions. However, in the zero portion, the treatment effect was underestimated in most models and data conditions, especially when there were fewer studies. The performance of both one- and two-step approaches depended on the formulation of the treatment effects, suggesting a need to carefully consider model assumptions and specifications when using IPD.

To evaluate and optimize brief alcohol interventions (BAIs), it is critical to have a credible overall effect size estimate as a benchmark. Estimating such an effect size has been challenging because alcohol outcomes often represent responses from a mixture of individuals: those at high risk for alcohol misuse, occasional nondrinkers, and abstainers. Moreover, some BAIs exclusively focus on heavy drinkers, whereas others take a universal prevention approach. Depending on sample characteristics, the outcome distribution might have many zeros or very few zeros and overdispersion; consequently, the most appropriate statistical model may differ across studies. We synthesized individual participant data (IPD) from 19 studies in Project INTEGRATE (Mun et al., 2015b) that randomly allocated participants to intervention and control groups (N = 7,704 participants, 38.4% men, 74.7% White, 58.5% first-year students). We sequentially estimated marginalized zero-inflated Poisson (Long et al., 2014) or negative binomial regression models to obtain covariate-adjusted, study-specific intervention effect estimates in the first step, which were subsequently combined in a random-effects meta-analysis model in the second step. BAIs produced a statistically significant 8% advantage in the mean number of drinks at both 1-3 months (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = [0.85, 0.98]) and 6 months (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = [0.85, 0.99]) compared to controls. At 9-12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of drinks between BAIs and controls. In conclusion, BAIs are effective at reducing the mean number of drinks through at least 6 months post intervention. IPD can play a critical role in deriving findings that could not be obtained in original individual studies or standard aggregate data meta-analyses., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Many clinical endpoint measures, such as the number of standard drinks consumed per week or the number of days that patients stayed in the hospital, are count data with excessive zeros. However, the zero-inflated nature of such outcomes is sometimes ignored in analyses of clinical trials. This leads to biased estimates of study-level intervention effect and, consequently, a biased estimate of the overall intervention effect in a meta-analysis. The current study proposes a novel statistical approach, the Zero-inflation Bias Correction (ZIBC) method, that can account for the bias introduced when using the Poisson regression model, despite a high rate of inflated zeros in the outcome distribution of a randomized clinical trial. This correction method only requires summary information from individual studies to correct intervention effect estimates as if they were appropriately estimated using the zero-inflated Poisson regression model, thus it is attractive for meta-analysis when individual participant-level data are not available in some studies. Simulation studies and real data analyses showed that the ZIBC method performed well in correcting zero-inflation bias in most situations., (© 2021 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This paper provides a tutorial companion for the methodological approach implemented in Huh et al. (2015) that overcame two major challenges for individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Specifically, we show how to validly combine data from heterogeneous studies with varying numbers of treatment arms, and how to analyze highly-skewed count outcomes with many zeroes (e.g., alcohol and substance use outcomes) to estimate overall effect sizes. These issues have important implications for the feasibility, applicability, and interpretation of IPD meta-analysis but have received little attention thus far in the applied research literature. We present a Bayesian multilevel modeling approach for combining multi-arm trials (i.e., those with two or more treatment groups) in a distribution-appropriate IPD analysis. Illustrative data come from Project INTEGRATE, an IPD meta-analysis study of brief motivational interventions to reduce excessive alcohol use and related harm among college students. Our approach preserves the original random allocation within studies, combines within-study estimates across all studies, overcomes between-study heterogeneity in trial design (i.e., number of treatment arms) and/or study-level missing data, and derives two related treatment outcomes in a multivariate IPD meta-analysis. This methodological approach is a favorable alternative to collapsing or excluding intervention groups within multi-arm trials, making it possible to directly compare multiple treatment arms in a one-step IPD meta-analysis. To facilitate application of the method, we provide annotated computer code in R along with the example data used in this tutorial., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Interventions aimed at improving HIV medication adherence could be dismissed as ineffective due to statistical methods that are not sufficiently sensitive. Cross-sectional techniques such as t tests are common to the field, but potentially inaccurate due to increased risk of chance findings and invalid assumptions of normal distribution. In a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, two approaches using logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE)-planned contrasts and growth curves-were examined for evaluating percent adherence data. Results of the logistic GEE approaches were compared to classical analysis of variance (ANOVA). Robust and bootstrapped estimation was used to obtain empirical standard error estimates. Logistic GEE with either planned contrasts or growth curves in combination with robust standard error estimates was superior to classical ANOVA for detecting intervention effects. The choice of longitudinal model led to key differences in inference. Implications and recommendations for applied researchers are discussed.