Revisiting the relation between change and initial value: A review and evaluation

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 443-457

  Tu, Yu Kang ^a   Gilthorpe, Mark S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analysis of change; Blomqvist's formula; Mathematical coupling; Oldham's method; Regression to the mean

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; HEALTH STATUS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BLOOD PRESSURE; CLINICAL TRIALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33846230039     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2538     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Gill JS, Zezulka AV, Beevers DG, Davies P. Relation between initial blood pressure and its fall with treatment. Lancet 1985; 1:567-568.
2. Halverson JD, Koehler RE. Gastric bypass: analysis of weight loss and factors determining success. Surgery 1981; 90:446-455.
3. Blomqvist N. On the relation between change and initial value. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1977; 72:746-749.
4. Jin P. Toward a reconceptualization of the law of initial value. Psychological Bulletin 1992; 111:176-184.
5. Archie JP. Mathematical coupling: a common source of error. Annals of Surgery 1981; 193:296-303.
6. Andersen B. Methodological Errors in Medical Research. Blackwell: London, 1990.
7. Moreno LF, Stratton HH, Newell JC, Feustel PJ. Mathematical coupling of data: correction of a common error for linear calculations. Journal of Applied Physiology 1986; 60:335-343.
8. Stratton HH, Feustel PJ, Newell JC. Regression of calculated variables in the presence of shared measurement error. Journal of Applied Physiology 1987; 62:2083-2093.
9. Tu Y-K, Gilthorpe MS, Griffiths GS. Is reduction of pocket probing depth correlated with the baseline value or is it 'mathematical coupling'? Journal of Dental Research 2002; 81:722-726.
10. Tu Y-K, Maddick IH, Griffiths GS, Gilthorpe MS. Mathematical coupling still undermines the statistical assessment of clinical research: illustration from the treatment of guided tissue regeneration. Journal of Dentistry 2004; 32:133-142.
11. Kirkwood B, Sterne JAC. Medical Statistics (2nd edn). Blackwell: Oxford, 2003.
12. Oldham PD. A note on the analysis of repeated measurements of the same subjects. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1962; 15:969-977.
13. Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals. Statistics in Medicine 1982; 1:59-71.
14. Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals: developments in the 1980s. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10:1897-1913.
15. Hayes RJ. Methods for assessing whether change depends on initial value. Statistics in Medicine 1988; 7:915-927.
16. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman & Hall/ CRC: London, Boca Raton, FL, 1991.
17. Blomqvist N. On the bias caused by regression towards the mean. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 1987; 14:34-37.
18. Yudkin PL, Stratton HH. How to deal with regression to the mean in intervention studies. Lancet 1996; 347:241-243.
19. Fitzmaurice G. Regression to the mean. Nutrition 2000; 16:81-82.
20. Morton V, Torgerson DJ. Effect of regression to the mean on decision making in health care. British Medical Journal 2003; 326:1083-1084.
21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Regression towards the mean. British Medical Journal 1994; 308:1499.
22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Some examples of regression towards the mean. British Medical Journal 1994; 309:780.
23. Campbell DT, Kenney DA. A Primer on Regression Artifacts. Guilford Press: New York, 2003.
24. Healy MJR. Some problems in repeated measurements. In Perspectives in Medical Statistics, Bithell JF, Coppi R (eds). Academic Press: London, 1981.
25. Pitman E. A note on normal correlation. Biometrika 1939; 31:9-12.
26. Morgan W. A test for the significance of the differences between two variances in a sample from a normal bivariate distribution. Biometrika 1939; 31:13-19.
27. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 327:307-310.
28. Garside RF. Letter to the editor: on the analysis of repeated measurements of the same subjects. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1963; 16:445-449.
29. Oldham PD. Letter to the editor. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1963; 16:447-450.
30. Fisher RA. Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 1915; 10:507-521.
31. Greenen R, van de Vijver FJR. A simple test of the law of initial value. Psychophysiology 1993; 30:525-530.
32. Guilford JP, Fruchter B. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1973.
33. Maloney CJ, Rastogi SC. Significance test for Grubb's estimators. Biometrics 1970; 26:671-676
34. Myrtek M, Foerster F. The law of initial value: a rare exception. Biological Psychology 1986; 22:227-237.
35. Dunn G. Statistical Evaluation of Measurement Errors (2nd edn). Arnold: London, 2004.
36. Cleary PJ. L.I.V. R.I.P.?: comments on Myrtek and Foerster's 'the law of initial value: a rare exception'. Biological Psychology 1986; 22:279-284.
37. Selvin S. Practical Biostatistical Methods. Duxbury: Pacific Grove, 1994.
38. Andersen B. Methodological Errors in Medical Research. Blackwell: London, 1990.
39. Bartko JJ, Pettigrew K. A note on the correlation of parts with wholes. American Statistician 1968; 22:41.
40. Tu Y-K, Baelum V, Gilthorpe MS. The relationship between baseline value and its change: problems in categorization and the proposal of a new method. European Journal of Oral Sciences 2005; 113:279-288.
41. Dawson B, Trapp RG. Basic and Clinical Biostatistics (3rd edn). McGraw-Hill: New York, 2001.
42. Goldstein H. Multilevel Statistical Models (2nd edn). Wiley: New York, 1995.
43. Blance A, Tu Y-K, Gilthorpe MS. A multilevel modelling solution to mathematical coupling. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2005; 14:553-565.
44. Galton F. Regression toward mediocrity in hereditary stature. Journal of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1986; 15:246-263.
45. Stigler SM. Regression towards the mean, historically considered. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1997; 6:103-114.
46. Senn SJ. Dicing with Death. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2003.
47. Hanley JA. 'Transmuting' women into men: Galton's family data on human stature. American Statistician 2004; 58:237-243.
48. Senn SJ. Letter to the editor: importance of trends in the interpretation of an overall odds ratio in the meta-analysis of clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13:293-295,
49. Brand R. Author's reply: importance of trends in the interpretation of an overall odds ratio in the meta-analysis of clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13:295-296.
50. Sharp SJ, Thompson SG, Altman DG. The relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 1996; 313:735-738.
51. Van Houwelingen H, Senn S. Letter to the editor. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18:110-113.
52. Thompson SG, Smith TC, Sharp SJ. Investigating underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16:2741-2758.
53. Myles PS, Gin T. Statistical Methods for Anaethesia and Intensive Care. Butterworth and Heinemann: Oxford, 2000.