Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 12, 2026

The Motivation for Alcohol Reward: Predictors of Progressive-Ratio Intravenous Alcohol Self-Administration in Humans
Published on: April 28, 2022
Aggregating and Analyzing Daily Drinking Data in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of Type I Errors, Power, and Bias
Kevin A Hallgren1, David C Atkins1, Katie Witkiewitz2
1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Objective:
Statistical analyses in alcohol clinical trials often use longitudinal daily drinking data (e.g., percentage of drinking days) to test treatment efficacy. Such data can be aggregated and analyzed in many ways. To assess how statistical analytic decisions may influence substantive results, the current report compares different aggregation methods (e.g., computing percentages of drinking days vs. using daily binary indicators of drinking) and statistical methods (i.e., least squares regression, linear mixed-effects models [LMM], generalized linear mixed models [GLMM], and generalized estimating equations [GEE]) for testing the effects of treatment on drinking outcomes in clinical trials.
Method:
A simulation study repeatedly resampled daily drinking data from the treatment period of the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence (COMBINE) Study at different sample sizes. Treatment effects in each data set were modeled using different aggregation and statistical methods.
Results:
Type I error rates were near the expected rate for most models but on occasion were mildly elevated when disaggregated daily drinking data were analyzed using GLMM or GEE with an exchangeable correlation structure. Most methods yielded similar statistical power, although power decreased when modeling disaggregated daily drinking with GLMM and had mixed increases and decreases when the longitudinal nature of data was ignored by using fully aggregated data with independent samples t tests.
Conclusions:
When testing treatment main effects, relatively simpler statistical methods with fewer repeated measures may perform equally well or better than more complicated methods. Patterns of significance and treatment effect size estimates are likely comparable across most studies that use different aggregation and statistical methods, but differences between these methods may occasionally have an important impact on conclusions in clinical trials.
More Related Videos
07:31Murine Drinking Models in the Development of Pharmacotherapies for Alcoholism: Drinking in the Dark and Two-bottle Choice
Published on: January 7, 2019
08:45Modeling Alcohol Consumption in Rodents Using Two-Bottle Choice Home Cage Drinking and Microstructural Analysis
Published on: November 8, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients