Comparing k > 2 Groups - Numeric Responses • Extension of Methods used to Compare 2 Groups • Parallel Groups and Crossover Designs • Normal and non-normal data structures Data Normal Design Nonnormal Parallel Groups (CRD) Crossover (RBD) KruskalWallis Test F-Test 1-Way ANOVA F-Test 2-Way ANOVA Friedman’s Test Parallel Groups - Completely Randomized Design (CRD) • Controlled Experiments - Subjects assigned at random to one of the k treatments to be compared • Observational Studies - Subjects are sampled from k existing groups • Statistical model Yij is a subject from group i: Yij i ij i ij where is the overall mean, i is the effect of treatment i , ij is a random error, and i is the population mean for group i 1-Way ANOVA for Normal Data (CRD) • For each group obtain the mean, standard deviation, and sample size: yi yij j ni si 2 ( y y ) ij i j ni 1 • Obtain the overall mean and sample size n n1 nk n1 y1 nk y k i j yij y n n Analysis of Variance - Sums of Squares • Total Variation TotalSS i 1 j 1 ( yij y) 2 k ni dfTotal n 1 • Between Group Variation SST i 1 j 1 ( y i y) i 1 ni ( y i y) 2 k ni 2 k dfT k 1 • Within Group Variation SSE i 1 j 1 ( yij y i ) i 1 (ni 1) si2 k ni TotalSS SST SSE 2 k dfTotal dfT df E df E n k Analysis of Variance Table and F-Test Source of Variation Treatments Error Total Sum of Squares SST SSE Total SS Degrres of Freedom k-1 n-k n-1 Mean Square MST=SST/(k-1) MSE=SSE/(n-k) F F=MST/MSE • H0: No differences among Group Means (1k=0) • HA: Group means are not all equal (Not all i are 0) MST T .S . : Fobs MSE R.R. : Fobs F ,k 1,n k P val : P( F Fobs ) (Table A.4) Example - Relaxation Music in PatientControlled Sedation in Colonoscopy • Three Conditions (Treatments): – Music and Self-sedation (i = 1) – Self-Sedation Only (i = 2) – Music alone (i = 3) • Outcomes – Patient satisfaction score (all 3 conditions) – Amount of self-controlled dose (conditions 1 and 2) Source: Lee, et al (2002) Example - Relaxation Music in PatientControlled Sedation in Colonoscopy • Summary Statistics and Sums of Squares Calculations: Trt (i) 1 2 3 Total ni 55 55 55 165 Mean 7.8 6.8 7.4 overall mean=7.33 Std. Dev. 2.1 2.3 2.3 --- SST 55(7.8 7.33) 2 55(6.8 7.33) 2 55(7.4 7.33) 2 31.29 dfT 3 1 2 SSE (55 1)( 2.1) 2 (55 1)( 2.3) 2 (55 1)( 2.3) 2 809.46 df E 165 3 162 TotalSS 31.29 809.46 840.75 dfTotal 2 162 164 Example - Relaxation Music in PatientControlled Sedation in Colonoscopy • Analysis of Variance and F-Test for Treatment effects Source of Variation Treatments Error Total Sum of Squares 31.29 809.46 840.75 Degrres of Freedom 2 162 164 Mean Square 15.65 5.00 F 3.13 •H0: No differences among Group Means (13=0) • HA: Group means are not all equal (Not all i are 0) 15.65 T .S . : Fobs 3.13 5.00 R.R. : Fobs F.05, k 2 ,162 3.055 P val : P ( F 3.13) 0.05 (Table A.4) Post-hoc Comparisons of Treatments • If differences in group means are determined from the F-test, researchers want to compare pairs of groups. Three popular methods include: – Dunnett’s Method - Compare active treatments with a control group. Consists of k-1 comparisons, and utilizes a special table. – Bonferroni’s Method - Adjusts individual comparison error rates so that all conclusions will be correct at desired confidence/significance level. Any number of comparisons can be made. – Tukey’s Method - Specifically compares all k(k-1)/2 pairs of groups. Utilizes a special table. Bonferroni’s Method (Most General) • Wish to make C comparisons of pairs of groups with simultaneous confidence intervals or 2-sided tests • Want the overall confidence level for all intervals to be “correct” to be 95% or the overall type I error rate for all tests to be 0.05 • For confidence intervals, construct (1-(0.05/C))100% CIs for the difference in each pair of group means (wider than 95% CIs) • Conduct each test at =0.05/C significance level (rejection region cut-offs more extreme than when =0.05) Bonferroni’s Method (Most General) • Simultaneous CI’s for pairs of group means: y y t i j / 2c ,nk 1 1 MSE n n j i • If entire interval is positive, conclude i > j • If entire interval is negative, conclude i < j • If interval contains 0, cannot conclude i j Example - Relaxation Music in PatientControlled Sedation in Colonoscopy • C=3 comparisons: 1 vs 2, 1 vs 3, 2 vs 3. Want all intervals to contain true difference with 95% confidence • Will construct (1-(0.05/3))100% = 98.33% CIs for differences among pairs of group means t.05 / 2 ( 3),162 z.0083 2.40 MSE 5.00 n1 n2 n3 55 1 1 1 1 t.05 / 2 ( 3),162 MSE 2.40 5.00 1.02 n n 55 55 j i 1vs2 : (7.8 6.8) 1.02 (0.02,2.02) 1vs3 : (7.8 7.4) 1.02 (0.62,1.42) 2vs3 : (6.8 7.4) 1.02 (1.62,0.42) Note all intervals contain 0, but first is very close to 0 at lower end CRD with Non-Normal Data Kruskal-Wallis Test • Extension of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test to k>2 Groups • Procedure: – Rank the observations across groups from smallest (1) to largest (n = n1+...+nk), adjusting for ties – Compute the rank sums for each group: T1,...,Tk . Note that T1+...+Tk = n(n+1)/2 Kruskal-Wallis Test • H0: The k population distributions are identical (1=...=k) • HA: Not all k distributions are identical (Not all i are equal) 2 12 k Ti T .S . : H 3(n 1) i 1 n(n 1) ni R.R. : H ,k 1 2 P val : P ( H ) 2 Post-hoc comparisons of pairs of groups can be made by pairwise application of rank-sum test with Bonferroni adjustment Example - Thalidomide for Weight Gain in HIV-1+ Patients with and without TB • k=4 Groups, n1=n2=n3=n4=8 patients per group (n=32) • Group 1: TB+ patients assigned Thalidomide • Group 2: TB- patients assigned Thalidomide • Group 3: TB+ patients assigned Placebo • Group 4: TB- patients assigned Placebo • Response - 21 day weight gains (kg) -- Negative values are weight losses Source: Klausner, et al (1996) Example - Thalidomide for Weight Gain in HIV-1+ Patients with and without TB TB+/Thal 9.0 (32) 6.0 (31) 4.5 (30) 2.0 (20.5) 2.5 (23) 3.0 (25) 1.0 (15.5) 1.5 (18.5) T1=195.5 TB-/Thal 2.5 (23) 3.5 (26.5) 4.0 (28.5) 1.0 (15.5) 0.5 (12) 4.0 (28.5) 1.5 (18.5) 2.0 (20.5) T2=173.0 TB+/Plac 0.0 (9) 1.0 (15.5) -1.0 (6) -2.0 (4) -3.0 (1.5) -3.0 (1.5) 0.5 (12) -2.5 (3) T3=52.5 TB-/Plac -0.5 (7) 0.0 (9) 2.5 (23) 0.5 (12) -1.5 (5) 0.0 (9) 1.0 (15.5) 3.5 (26.5) T4=107.0 12 (195.5) 2 (173.0) 2 (52.5) 2 (107.0) 2 3(33) 17.98 T .S . : H 32(33) 8 8 8 8 R.R. : H .205, 41 7.815 Weight Gain Example - SPSS Output F-Test and Post-Hoc Comparisons O W m d F S i a g f B 8 3 3 6 0 W 3 8 3 T 0 1 4 3 2 Mean of WTGAIN 1 0 -1 -2 TB+/Thalidom ide GROUP TB-/Thalidom ide TB+/Placebo TB-/Placebo Weight Gain Example - SPSS Output F-Test and Post-Hoc Comparisons C o m D ep M ean f i de n er en per d. ( er S I ( ( I J i J E ) g B ) ) B G T T T uk B B 89 1 6 18 7 3 4 1 6 T B 52 3 6 00 5 8* 4 4 1 T B 58 0 6 18 16 0* 4 4 T T B B 27 1 6 18 9 3 4 6 1 T B 20 2 6 03 4 5* 4 1 9 T B 27 8 6 02 96 8 4 1 T T B B 35 3 6 00 2 8 4 1 4 * T B 04 2 6 03 0 5 4 9 1 * T B 646 3 6 95 2 8 4 1 T T B B 416 0 6 18 8 0 4 4 * T B 896 8 6 02 7 8 4 1 T B 52 3 6 95 46 8 4 1 B T T B on B 99 1 6 0 7 3 4 0 4 9 T B 62 3 6 00 5 8* 4 1 4 T B 68 0 6 22 13 0* 4 7 T T B B 37 1 6 0 9 3 4 0 9 4 T B 31 2 6 04 38 5* 4 2 T B 37 8 6 12 99 8 4 4 T T B B 25 3 6 00 2 8 4 4 1 * T B 938 2 6 04 1 5 4 2 * T B 749 3 6 01 2 8 4 4 T T B B 313 0 6 22 8 0 4 7 * T B 999 8 6 12 7 8 4 4 T B 62 3 6 01 49 8 4 4 * . T he Weight Gain Example - SPSS Output Kruskal-Wallis H-Test n n N G W T 8 4 T 8 3 T 8 6 T 8 8 T 2 t a a G C d A a K b G Crossover Designs: Randomized Block Design (RBD) • k > 2 Treatments (groups) to be compared • b individuals receive each treatment (preferably in random order). Subjects are called Blocks. • Outcome when Treatment i is assigned to Subject j is labeled Yij • Effect of Trt i is labeled i • Effect of Subject j is labeled bj • Random error term is labeled ij Crossover Designs - RBD • Model: Yij i b j ij i b j ij • Test for differences among treatment effects: • H0: 1 ... k 0 (1 ... k ) • HA: Not all i = 0 (Not all i are equal) RBD - ANOVA F-Test (Normal Data) • Data Structure: (k Treatments, b Subjects) • Mean for Treatment i: y i. • Mean for Subject (Block) j: • Overall Mean: y. j y • Overall sample size: n = bk • ANOVA:Treatment, Block, and Error Sums of Squares SST b y y SSB k y y TotalSS i 1 j 1 yij y k b 2 k i 1 i. 2 b j 1 .j SSE TotalSS SST SSB 2 df Total bk 1 df T k 1 df B b 1 df E (b 1)( k 1) RBD - ANOVA F-Test (Normal Data) • ANOVA Table: Source Treatments Blocks Error Total SS SST SSB SSE TotalSS df k-1 b-1 (b-1)(k-1) bk-1 MS MST = SST/(k-1) MSB = SSB/(b-1) MSE = SSE/[(b-1)(k-1)] •H0: 1 ... k 0 (1 ... k ) • HA: Not all i = 0 T .S . : Fobs R.R. : Fobs (Not all i are equal) MST MSE F , k 1,( b 1)( k 1) P val : P ( F Fobs ) F F = MST/MSE Example - Theophylline Interaction • Goal: Determine whether Cimetidine or Famotidine interact with Theophylline • 3 Treatments: Theo/Cim, Theo/Fam, Theo/Placebo • 14 Blocks: Each subject received each treatment • Response: Theophylline clearance (liters/hour) Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Source: Bachmann, et al (1995) TRT Mean T/C 3.69 3.61 1.15 4.02 1.00 1.75 1.45 2.59 1.57 2.34 1.31 2.43 2.33 2.34 2.26 T/F 5.13 7.04 1.46 4.44 1.15 2.11 2.12 3.25 2.11 5.20 1.98 2.38 3.53 2.33 3.16 T/P 5.88 5.89 1.46 4.05 1.09 2.59 1.69 3.16 2.06 4.59 2.08 2.61 3.42 2.54 3.08 BLK Mean 4.90 5.51 1.36 4.17 1.08 2.15 1.75 3.00 1.91 4.04 1.79 2.47 3.09 2.40 2.83 Example - Theophylline Interaction n - D I I I S q d S F S u i f g a C 7 5 4 8 0 I n 3 1 3 9 0 T 5 2 3 1 0 S 1 3 4 3 0 E 9 6 1 T 9 2 C 5 1 a R • The test for differences in mean theophylline clearance is given in the third line of the table •T.S.: Fobs=10.59 • R.R.: Fobs F.05,2,26 = 3.37 (From F-table) • P-value: .000 (Sig. Level) C Example - Theophylline Interaction Post-hoc Comparisons Bonferroni : y i y j t / 2 c ,( b 1)( k 1) Tukey : y i y j q.05,k ,( b 1)( k 1) 2 MSE b 1 MSE b o t 2.57 q 3.514 m D e M e a d e e r e e e S . I ( r r ( i I E J J g ) B B ) T T T u h h 3 0 3 3 6 6 1 7 5 * T h 3 0 3 3 6 6 2 7 5 * T T h h 3 0 3 3 6 6 1 5 7 * T h 3 2 0 0 0 6 8 1 1 T T h h 3 0 3 3 6 6 2 5 7 * T h 3 2 0 0 0 6 8 1 1 B T T o h h 3 0 9 7 6 6 1 8 4 * T h 3 0 9 7 6 6 2 8 4 * T T h h 3 0 7 9 6 6 1 4 8 * T h 3 0 6 6 0 6 0 2 2 T T h h 3 0 7 9 6 6 2 4 8 * T h 3 0 6 6 0 6 0 2 2 B a * . T h Example - Theophylline Interaction Plot of Data (Marginal means are raw data) Estimated Marginal Means of CLRNCE 7 6 5 TRT 4 Theophylline/Cimetid 3 ine 2 Theophylline/Famotid 1 ine 0 Theophylline/Placebo 1 3 2 5 4 SUBJECT 7 6 9 8 11 10 13 12 14 RBD -- Non-Normal Data Friedman’s Test • When data are non-normal, test is based on ranks • Procedure to obtain test statistic: – Rank the k treatments within each block (1=smallest, k=largest) adjusting for ties – Compute rank sums for treatments (Ti) across blocks – H0: The k populations are identical (1=...=k) – HA: Differences exist among the k group means 12 k 2 T .S . : Fr T 3b(k 1) i 1 i bk (k 1) R.R. : Fr 2 ,k 1 P val : P( 2 Fr ) Example - tmax for 3 formulation/fasting states • k=3 Treatments of Valproate: Capsule/Fasting (i=1), Capsule/nonfasting (i=2), Enteric-Coated/fasting (i=3) • b=11 subjects • Response - Time to maximum concentration (tmax) Subject Source: Carrigan, et al (1990) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rank sum C/F 3.5 (2) 4.0 (2) 3.5 (2) 3.0 (1.5) 3.5 (1.5) 3.0 (1) 4.0 (2.5) 3.5 (2) 3.5 (1.5) 3.0 (1) 4.5 (2) T1=19.0 C/NF 4.5 (3) 4.5 (3) 4.5 (3) 4.5 (3) 5.0 (3) 5.5 (3) 4.0 (2.5) 4.5 (3) 5.0 (3) 4.5 (3) 6.0 (3) T2=32.5 EC/F 2.5 (1) 3.0 (1) 3.0 (1) 3.0 (1.5) 3.5 (1.5) 3.5 (2) 2.5 (1) 3.0 (1) 3.5 (1.5) 3.5 (2) 3.0 (1) T3=14.5 Example - tmax for 3 formulation/fasting states H0: The k populations are identical (1=...=k) HA: Differences exist among the k group means 12 T .S . : Fr 19.0 2 32.52 14.52 3(11)(3 1) 15.95 11(3)(3 1) R.R. : Fr .205,31 5.99