0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
ARTICLE |

Accounting for the Correlation Between Fellow Eyes in Regression Analysis

Robert J. Glynn, ScD; Bernard Rosner, PhD
Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(3):381-387. doi:10.1001/archopht.1992.01080150079033.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

• Regression techniques that appropriately use all available eyes have infrequently been applied in the ophthalmologic literature, despite advances both in the development of statistical models and in the availability of computer software to fit these models. We considered the general linear model and polychotomous logistic regression approaches of Rosner and the estimating equation approach of Liang and Zeger, applied to both linear and logistic regression. Methods were illustrated with the use of two real data sets: (1) impairment of visual acuity in patients with retinitis pigmentosa and (2) overall visual field impairment in elderly patients evaluated for glaucoma. We discuss the interpretation of coefficients from these models and the advantages of these approaches compared with alternative approaches, such as treating individuals rather than eyes as the unit of analysis, separate regression analyses of right and left eyes, or utilization of ordinary regression techniques without accounting for the correlation between fellow eyes. Specific advantages include enhanced statistical power, more interpretable regression coefficients, greater precision of estimation, and less sensitivity to missing data for some eyes. We concluded that these models should be used more frequently in ophthalmologic research, and we provide guidelines for choosing between alternative models.

Topics

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();