Cluster randomised trials with different numbers of measurements at baseline and endline: Sample size and optimal allocation

被引:5
|
作者
Copas, Andrew J. [1 ]
Hooper, Richard [2 ]
机构
[1] UCL, Inst Clin Trials Methodol, MRC Clin Trials Unit, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, England
[2] Queen Mary Univ London, Ctr Primary Care & Publ Hlth, London, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Cluster randomised trial; baseline data; sample size; power; efficiency; study design; STEPPED WEDGE; COVARIANCE; FORMULA;
D O I
10.1177/1740774519873888
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background/Aims: Published methods for sample size calculation for cluster randomised trials with baseline data are inflexible and primarily assume an equal amount of data collected at baseline and endline, that is, before and after the intervention has been implemented in some clusters. We extend these methods to any amount of baseline and endline data. We explain how to explore sample size for a trial if some baseline data from the trial clusters have already been collected as part of a separate study. Where such data aren't available, we show how to choose the proportion of data collection devoted to the baseline within the trial, when a particular cluster size or range of cluster sizes is proposed. Methods: We provide a design effect given the cluster size and correlation parameters, assuming different participants are assessed at baseline and endline in the same clusters. We show how to produce plots to identify the impact of varying the amount of baseline data accounting for the inevitable uncertainty in the cluster autocorrelation. We illustrate the methodology using an example trial. Results: Baseline data provide more power, or allow a greater reduction in trial size, with greater values of the cluster size, intracluster correlation and cluster autocorrelation. Conclusion: Investigators should think carefully before collecting baseline data in a cluster randomised trial if this is at the expense of endline data. In some scenarios, this will increase the sample size required to achieve given power and precision.
引用
收藏
页码:69 / 76
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Sample size in cluster randomised trials with unequal clusters
    Ivana Holloway
    Amanda Farrin
    [J]. Trials, 12 (Suppl 1)
  • [2] Cluster randomised controlled trials: sample size calculations
    Sedgwick, Philip
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346
  • [3] Optimal Allocation of Interviews to Baseline and Endline Surveys in Place-Based Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments
    Green, Donald P.
    Lin, Winston
    Gerber, Claudia
    [J]. EVALUATION REVIEW, 2018, 42 (04) : 391 - 422
  • [4] A review of methodology for sample size calculations in cluster randomised trials
    Clare Rutterford
    Sandra Eldridge
    Andrew Copas
    [J]. Trials, 12 (Suppl 1)
  • [5] Inadequate reporting of sample size calculations in cluster randomised trials: a review
    Clare Rutterford
    Monica Taljaard
    Stephanie Dixon
    Andrew Copas
    Sandra Eldridge
    [J]. Trials, 14 (Suppl 1)
  • [6] Optimal design of cluster randomised trials with continuous recruitment and prospective baseline period
    Hooper, Richard
    Copas, Andrew J.
    [J]. CLINICAL TRIALS, 2021, 18 (02) : 147 - 157
  • [7] Bayesian prediction of the intra-cluster correlation for sample size calculation of cluster randomised trials
    Newby, Chris
    Eldridge, Sandra
    Mary, Quenn
    [J]. TRIALS, 2017, 18
  • [8] Sample size calculations for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials with unequal cluster sizes
    Kristunas, Caroline A.
    Smith, Karen L.
    Gray, Laura J.
    [J]. TRIALS, 2016, 17
  • [9] Sample size calculation for stepped wedge and other longitudinal cluster randomised trials
    Hooper, Richard
    Teerenstra, Steven
    de Hoop, Esther
    Eldridge, Sandra
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2016, 35 (26) : 4718 - 4728
  • [10] Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach
    Hemming, Karla
    Taljaard, Monica
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 69 : 137 - 146