Model 1
logit PðD¼ 1 jXÞ¼b 0 þb 1 RX
ni¼ 2 :½AR 1 ;exchangeable;
or unstructured
)same 2 2 Ci
Ci¼
1 r
r 1
"
Exchangeablecorrelation structure
Variable Coefficient
Empirical
Std Err
Waldp-
value
INTERCEPT 0.2007 0.3178 0.5278
RX 0.3008 0.3868 0.4368
Scale 1.0127
ORd¼expð 0 : 3008 Þ¼ 1 : 35
95 %CI¼ð 0 : 63 ; 2 : 88 Þ
ExchangeableCi
COL1 COL2
ROW1 1.0000 0.2634
ROW2 0.2634 1.0000
SLR (naive) model
Variable Coefficient
Model-
based Std Err
Wald
p-value
INTERCEPT 0.2007 0.3178 0.5278
RX 0.3008 0.4486 0.5826
Scale 1.0000
ORd¼expð 0 : 3008 Þ¼ 1 : 35
95 %CI¼ð 0 : 56 ; 3 : 25 Þ
For this analysis, RX is the only independent
variable considered. The model is stated as
shown on the left. With exactly two observa-
tions per subject, the only correlation to con-
sider is the correlation between the two
responses for the same subject. Thus, there is
only one estimated correlation parameter,
which is the same for each cluster. As a result,
using an AR1, exchangeable, or unstructured
correlation structure yields the same 2 2
working correlation matrix (Ci).
The output for a GEE model with an exchange-
able correlation structure is presented on the
left.
The odds ratio estimate for the effect of
treatment for relieving heartburn is
exp(0.3008)¼1.35 with the 95% confidence
interval of (0.63, 2.88). The working correlation
matrix shows that the correlation between
responses from the same subject is estimated
at 0.2634.
A standard logistic regression is presented
for comparison. The odds ratio estimate at
exp(0.3008)¼1.35 is exactly the same as was
obtained from the GEE model with the
exchangeable correlation structure; however,
the standard error is larger, yielding a larger
95% confidence interval of (0.56, 3.25).
Although an odds ratio of 1.35 suggests that
the active treatment provides greater relief for
heartburn, the null value of 1.00 is contained in
the 95% confidence intervals for both models.
556 15. GEE Examples