<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Seaman SR</submitter><funding>Medical Research Council</funding><pagination>449-56</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC4312901</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>70(2)</volume><pubmed_abstract>Clustered data commonly arise in epidemiology. We assume each cluster member has an outcome Y and covariates X. When there are missing data in Y, the distribution of Y given X in all cluster members ("complete clusters") may be different from the distribution just in members with observed Y ("observed clusters"). Often the former is of interest, but when data are missing because in a fundamental sense Y does not exist (e.g., quality of life for a person who has died), the latter may be more meaningful (quality of life conditional on being alive). Weighted and doubly weighted generalized estimating equations and shared random-effects models have been proposed for observed-cluster inference when cluster size is informative, that is, the distribution of Y given X in observed clusters depends on observed cluster size. We show these methods can be seen as actually giving inference for complete clusters and may not also give observed-cluster inference. This is true even if observed clusters are complete in themselves rather than being the observed part of larger complete clusters: here methods may describe imaginary complete clusters rather than the observed clusters. We show under which conditions shared random-effects models proposed for observed-cluster inference do actually describe members with observed Y. A psoriatic arthritis dataset is used to illustrate the danger of misinterpreting estimates from shared random-effects models.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Biometrics</journal><pubmed_title>Methods for observed-cluster inference when cluster size is informative: a review and clarifications.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC4312901</pmcid><funding_grant_id>60558</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>MC_EX_G0800814</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>MC_U105260558</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>MC US A030 0015</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>G0600657</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>U1052</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>U1052 60558</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Pavlou M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Seaman SR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Copas AJ</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Methods for observed-cluster inference when cluster size is informative: a review and clarifications.</name><description>Clustered data commonly arise in epidemiology. We assume each cluster member has an outcome Y and covariates X. When there are missing data in Y, the distribution of Y given X in all cluster members ("complete clusters") may be different from the distribution just in members with observed Y ("observed clusters"). Often the former is of interest, but when data are missing because in a fundamental sense Y does not exist (e.g., quality of life for a person who has died), the latter may be more meaningful (quality of life conditional on being alive). Weighted and doubly weighted generalized estimating equations and shared random-effects models have been proposed for observed-cluster inference when cluster size is informative, that is, the distribution of Y given X in observed clusters depends on observed cluster size. We show these methods can be seen as actually giving inference for complete clusters and may not also give observed-cluster inference. This is true even if observed clusters are complete in themselves rather than being the observed part of larger complete clusters: here methods may describe imaginary complete clusters rather than the observed clusters. We show under which conditions shared random-effects models proposed for observed-cluster inference do actually describe members with observed Y. A psoriatic arthritis dataset is used to illustrate the danger of misinterpreting estimates from shared random-effects models.</description><dates><release>2014-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2014 Jun</publication><modification>2025-04-19T14:40:06.752Z</modification><creation>2019-03-27T01:44:22Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC4312901</accession><cross_references><pubmed>24479899</pubmed><doi>10.1111/biom.12151</doi></cross_references></HashMap>