Skip to content
naulon
Not checkedNot checked for notices yet.

A comparison of four methods for the analysis of N-of-1 trials.

Xinlin Chen, Pingyan Chen

PLoS ONE · 2014

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087752 (opens in a new tab)

We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide a practical guidance for the analysis of N-of-1 trials by comparing four commonly used models. METHODS: The four models, paired t-test, mixed effects model of difference, mixed effects model and meta-analysis of summary data were compared using a simulation study. The assumed 3-cycles and 4-cycles N-of-1 trials were set with sample sizes of 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 respectively under normally distributed assumption. The data were generated based on variance-covariance matrix under the assumption of (i) compound symmetry structure or first-order autoregressive structure, and (ii) no carryover effect or 20% carryover effect. Type I error, power, bias (mean error), and mean square error (MSE) of effect differences between two groups were used to evaluate the performance of the four models. RESULTS: The results from the 3-cycles and 4-cycles N-of-1 trials were comparable with respect to type I error, power, bias and MSE. Paired t-test yielded type I error near to the nominal level, higher power, comparable bias and small MSE, whether there was carryover effect or not. Compared with paired t-test, mixed effects model produced similar size of type I error, smaller bias, but lower power and bigger MSE. Mixed effects model of difference and meta-analysis of summary data yielded type I error far from the nominal level, low power, and large bias and MSE irrespective of the presence or absence of carryover effect. CONCLUSION: We recommended paired t-test to be used for normally distributed data of N-of-1 trials because of its optimal statistical performance. In the presence of carryover effects, mixed effects model could be used as an alternative.

Abstract licence: CC BY

References28

    28 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

    Reads

    Read by people on this page

    None yet.

    Checked or read by AI through naulon

    None yet.

    A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

    Are you an author?

    Is this your paper?

    Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.