Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method

被引:3
|
作者
Thompson, Jennifer A. [1 ]
Leyrat, Clemence [2 ]
Fielding, Katherine L. [1 ]
Hayes, Richard J. [1 ]
机构
[1] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Infect Dis, London, England
[2] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Med Stat, London, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Cluster-level analysis; Cluster level analysis; Generalised linear mixed model; Generalised estimating equations; Comparison of methods; Cluster randomised trial; Small number of clusters; INTRACLASS CORRELATION-COEFFICIENT; SMALL-SAMPLE INFERENCE; COVARIANCE ESTIMATORS; GEE; SIZES; PERFORMANCE; SIMULATION; EFFICIENCY; VARIANCE; MODELS;
D O I
10.1186/s12874-022-01699-2
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are often designed with a small number of clusters, but it is not clear which analysis methods are optimal when the outcome is binary. This simulation study aimed to determine (i) whether cluster-level analysis (CL), generalised linear mixed models (GLMM), and generalised estimating equations with sandwich variance (GEE) approaches maintain acceptable type-one error including the impact of non-normality of cluster effects and low prevalence, and if so (ii) which methods have the greatest power. We simulated CRTs with 8-30 clusters, altering the cluster-size, outcome prevalence, intracluster correlation coefficient, and cluster effect distribution. We analysed each dataset with weighted and unweighted CL; GLMM with adaptive quadrature and restricted pseudolikelihood; GEE with Kauermann-and-Carroll and Fay-and-Graubard sandwich variance using independent and exchangeable working correlation matrices. P-values were from a t-distribution with degrees of freedom (DoF) as clusters minus cluster-level parameters; GLMM pseudolikelihood also used Satterthwaite and Kenward-Roger DoF. Results Unweighted CL, GLMM pseudolikelihood, and Fay-and-Graubard GEE with independent or exchangeable working correlation matrix controlled type-one error in > 97% scenarios with clusters minus parameters DoF. Cluster-effect distribution and prevalence of outcome did not usually affect analysis method performance. GEE had the least power. With 20-30 clusters, GLMM had greater power than CL with varying cluster-size but similar power otherwise; with fewer clusters, GLMM had lower power with common cluster-size, similar power with medium variation, and greater power with large variation in cluster-size. Conclusion We recommend that CRTs with <= 30 clusters and a binary outcome use an unweighted CL or restricted pseudolikelihood GLMM both with DoF clusters minus cluster-level parameters.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method
    Jennifer A. Thompson
    Clemence Leyrat
    Katherine L. Fielding
    Richard J. Hayes
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22
  • [2] Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study
    Barker, Daniel
    D'Este, Catherine
    Campbell, Michael J.
    McElduff, Patrick
    [J]. TRIALS, 2017, 18
  • [3] Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study
    Daniel Barker
    Catherine D’Este
    Michael J. Campbell
    Patrick McElduff
    [J]. Trials, 18
  • [4] Subject-level matching for imbalance in cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters
    Leon, Andrew C.
    Demirtas, Hakan
    Li, Chunshan
    Hedeker, Donald
    [J]. PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2013, 12 (05) : 268 - 274
  • [5] Analysis of cluster randomised trials with an assessment of outcome at baseline
    Hooper, Richard
    Forbes, Andrew
    Hemming, Karla
    Takeda, Andrea
    Beresford, Lee
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2018, 360
  • [6] Design and Analysis Considerations for Cluster Randomized Controlled Trials That Have a Small Number of Clusters
    Deke, John
    [J]. EVALUATION REVIEW, 2016, 40 (05) : 444 - 486
  • [7] Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters
    Karla Hemming
    Alan J Girling
    Alice J Sitch
    Jennifer Marsh
    Richard J Lilford
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11
  • [8] Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters
    Hemming, Karla
    Girling, Alan J.
    Sitch, Alice J.
    Marsh, Jennifer
    Lilford, Richard J.
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2011, 11
  • [9] Choosing appropriate analysis methods for cluster randomised cross-over trials with a binary outcome
    Morgan, Katy E.
    Forbes, Andrew B.
    Keogh, Ruth H.
    Jairath, Vipul
    Kahan, Brennan C.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2017, 36 (02) : 318 - 333
  • [10] On the number of clusters in cluster analysis
    Takasu, A
    [J]. DISCOVERY SCIENCE, 1998, 1532 : 419 - 420