Advancing randomized controlled trial methodologies: The place of innovative trial design in eating disorders research.

Randomized controlled trials can be used to generate evidence on the efficacy and safety of new treatments in eating disorders research. Many of the trials previously conducted in this area have been deemed to be of low quality, in part due to a number of practical constraints. This article provides an overview of established and more innovative clinical trial designs, accompanied by pertinent examples, to highlight how design choices can enhance flexibility and improve efficiency of both resource allocation and participant involvement. Trial designs include individually randomized, cluster randomized, and designs with randomizations at multiple time points and/or addressing several research questions (master protocol studies). Design features include the use of adaptations and considerations for pragmatic or registry-based trials. The appropriate choice of trial design, together with rigorous trial conduct, reporting and analysis, can establish high-quality evidence to advance knowledge in the field. It is anticipated that this article will provide a broad and contemporary introduction to trial designs and will help researchers make informed trial design choices for improved testing of new interventions in eating disorders. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: There is a paucity of high quality randomized controlled trials that have been conducted in eating disorders, highlighting the need to identify where efficiency gains in trial design may be possible to advance the eating disorder research field. We provide an overview of some key trial designs and features which may offer solutions to practical constraints and increase trial efficiency.

The batched stepped wedge design: A design robust to delays in cluster recruitment.

Stepped wedge designs are an increasingly popular variant of longitudinal cluster randomized trial designs, and roll out interventions across clusters in a randomized, but step-wise fashion. In the standard stepped wedge design, assumptions regarding the effect of time on outcomes may require that all clusters start and end trial participation at the same time. This would require ethics approvals and data collection procedures to be in place in all clusters before a stepped wedge trial can start in any cluster. Hence, although stepped wedge designs are useful for testing the impacts of many cluster-based interventions on outcomes, there can be lengthy delays before a trial can commence. In this article, we introduce "batched" stepped wedge designs. Batched stepped wedge designs allow clusters to commence the study in batches, instead of all at once, allowing for staggered cluster recruitment. Like the stepped wedge, the batched stepped wedge rolls out the intervention to all clusters in a randomized and step-wise fashion: a series of self-contained stepped wedge designs. Provided that separate period effects are included for each batch, software for standard stepped wedge sample size calculations can be used. With this time parameterization, in many situations including when linear models are assumed, sample size calculations reduce to the setting of a single stepped wedge design with multiple clusters per sequence. In these situations, sample size calculations will not depend on the delays between the commencement of batches. Hence, the power of batched stepped wedge designs is robust to unexpected delays between batches.

Use of information criteria for selecting a correlation structure for longitudinal cluster randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: When designing and analysing longitudinal cluster randomised trials, such as the stepped wedge, the similarity of outcomes from the same cluster must be accounted for through the choice of a form for the within-cluster correlation structure. Several choices for this structure are commonly considered for application within the linear mixed model paradigm. The first assumes a constant intra-cluster correlation for all pairs of outcomes from the same cluster (the exchangeable/Hussey and Hughes model); the second assumes that correlations of outcomes measured in the same period are higher than outcomes measured in different periods (the block exchangeable model) and the third is the discrete-time decay model, which allows the correlation between pairs of outcomes to decay over time. Currently, there is limited guidance on how to select the most appropriate within-cluster correlation structure. METHODS: We simulated continuous outcomes under each of the three considered within-cluster correlation structures for a range of design and parameter choices, and, using the ASReml-R package, fit each linear mixed model to each simulated dataset. We evaluated the performance of the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria for selecting the correct within-cluster correlation structure for each dataset. RESULTS: For smaller total sample sizes, neither criteria performs particularly well in selecting the correct within-cluster correlation structure, with the simpler exchangeable model being favoured. Furthermore, in general, the Bayesian information criterion favours the exchangeable model. When the cluster auto-correlation (which defines the degree of dependence between observations in adjacent time periods) is large and number of periods is small, neither criteria is able to distinguish between the block exchangeable and discrete time decay models. However, for increasing numbers of clusters, periods, and subjects per cluster period, both the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria perform increasingly well in the detection of the correct within-cluster correlation structure. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing amounts of data, be they number of clusters, periods or subjects per cluster period, both the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria are increasingly likely to select the correct correlation structure. We recommend that if there are sufficient data available when planning a trial, that the Akaike or Bayesian information criterion is used to guide the choice of within-cluster correlation structure in the absence of other compelling justifications for a specific correlation structure. We also suggest that researchers conduct supplementary analyses under alternate correlation structures to gauge sensitivity to the initial choice.

Information content of stepped wedge designs with unequal cluster-period sizes in linear mixed models: Informing incomplete designs.

In practice, stepped wedge trials frequently include clusters of differing sizes. However, investigations into the theoretical aspects of stepped wedge designs have, until recently, typically assumed equal numbers of subjects in each cluster and in each period. The information content of the cluster-period cells, clusters, and periods of stepped wedge designs has previously been investigated assuming equal cluster-period sizes, and has shown that incomplete stepped wedge designs may be efficient alternatives to the full stepped wedge. How this changes when cluster-period sizes are not equal is unknown, and we investigate this here. Working within the linear mixed model framework, we show that the information contributed by design components (clusters, sequences, and periods) does depend on the sizes of each cluster-period. Using a particular trial that assessed the impact of an individual education intervention on log-length of stay in rehabilitation units, we demonstrate how strongly the efficiency of incomplete designs depends on which cells are excluded: smaller incomplete designs may be more powerful than alternative incomplete designs that include a greater total number of participants. This also serves to demonstrate how the pattern of information content can be used to inform a set of incomplete designs to be considered as alternatives to the complete stepped wedge design. Our theoretical results for the information content can be extended to a broad class of longitudinal (ie, multiple period) cluster randomized trial designs.

Does it decay? Obtaining decaying correlation parameter values from previously analysed cluster randomised trials.

A frequently applied assumption in the analysis of data from cluster randomised trials is that the outcomes from all participants within a cluster are equally correlated. That is, the intracluster correlation, which describes the degree of dependence between outcomes from participants in the same cluster, is the same for each pair of participants in a cluster. However, recent work has discussed the importance of allowing for this correlation to decay as the time between the measurement of participants in a cluster increases. Incorrect omission of such a decay can lead to under-powered studies, and confidence intervals for estimated treatment effects can be too narrow or too wide, depending on the characteristics of the design. When planning studies, researchers often rely on previously reported analyses of trials to inform their choice of intracluster correlation. However, most reported analyses of clustered data do not incorporate a correlation decay. Thus, often all that is available are estimates of intracluster correlations obtained under the potentially incorrect assumption of no decay. In this article, we show that it is possible to use intracluster correlation values obtained from models that incorrectly omit a decay to inform plausible choices of decaying correlations. Our focus is on intracluster correlation estimates for continuous outcomes obtained by fitting linear mixed models with exchangeable or block-exchangeable correlation structures. We describe how plausible values for decaying correlations may be obtained given these estimated intracluster correlations. An online app is presented that allows users to obtain plausible values of the decay, which can be used at the trial planning stage to assess the sensitivity of sample size and power calculations to decaying correlation structures.

Inference for the treatment effect in longitudinal cluster randomized trials when treatment effect heterogeneity is ignored.

In cluster-randomized trials, sometimes the effect of the intervention being studied differs between clusters, commonly referred to as treatment effect heterogeneity. In the analysis of stepped wedge and cluster-randomized crossover trials, it is possible to include terms in outcome regression models to allow for such treatment effect heterogeneity yet this is not frequently considered. Outside of some simulation studies of specific cases where the outcome is binary, the impact of failing to include terms for treatment effect heterogeneity on the variance of the treatment effect estimator is unknown. We analytically examine the impact of failing to include terms for treatment effect heterogeneity on the variance of the treatment effect estimator, when outcomes are continuous. Using analysis of variance and feasible generalized least squares we provide expressions for this variance. For both the cluster-randomized crossover design and the stepped wedge design, our analytic derivations indicate that failing to include treatment effect heterogeneity results in the estimates for variance of the treatment effect that are too small, leading to inflation of type I error rates. We therefore recommend assessing the sensitivity of sample size calculations and conclusions drawn from the analysis of cluster randomized trials to the inclusion of treatment effect heterogeneity.