Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method.
Thompson, Jennifer A; Leyrat, Clemence; Fielding, Katherine L; Hayes, Richard J.
Afiliação
  • Thompson JA; Department of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Jennifer.Thompson@lshtm.ac.uk.
  • Leyrat C; Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
  • Fielding KL; Department of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
  • Hayes RJ; Department of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 22(1): 222, 2022 08 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35962318
ABSTRACT

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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article