Literature DB >> 11180311

Analysis of cluster randomized trials with repeated cross-sectional binary measurements.

O C Ukoumunne1, S G Thompson.   

Abstract

Analytical techniques appropriate for cluster randomized trials that utilize a repeated cross-sectional design have not been extensively evaluated. This paper compares methods that can be used to evaluate the impact of an intervention on dichotomous outcomes. The methods are applied to data from a study on the implementation of Cochrane review evidence, in which 25 hospital obstetric units were randomized. Assessments were made for 30 pregnancies in each obstetric unit at baseline, and for 30 separate pregnancies at follow-up. The principal issues addressed are how best to take clustering into account and to allow for baseline imbalance. We compare cluster level analyses, the clustered Woolf method, marginal models based on generalized estimating equations, multilevel models, and methods based on random effects meta-analysis. Analyses which ignored the baseline assessments showed no effect of the intervention. There was substantial baseline imbalance, however, so that analyses taking into account the baseline were necessary. Yet, while analyses of change from baseline showed evidence of an effect of intervention, adjusting for baseline using analysis of covariance did not. Analysis of covariance required the use of cluster level rather than individual level responses, since different pregnancies were evaluated at baseline and follow-up. Also, when analysing change from baseline, we show it is important to allow for variation in the effect of secular trend between clusters in a multilevel model, or use robust variance estimates in a marginal model, for otherwise confidence intervals for the effect of intervention will be too narrow. We conclude however that analyses of change from baseline can be misleading since they are affected too much by baseline results, and that analysis of covariance approaches are preferable. To prevent difficulties in interpreting the results from repeated cross-sectional cluster trial designs, one should either attempt to achieve baseline balance by careful stratification of the clusters prior to randomization, or have sufficiently large samples for precise estimation of the effects of imbalance. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11180311     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0258(20010215)20:3<417::aid-sim802>3.0.co;2-g

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  18 in total

1.  A cluster-randomized trial to improve stroke care in hospitals.

Authors:  K Lakshminarayan; C Borbas; B McLaughlin; N E Morris; G Vazquez; R V Luepker; D C Anderson
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 9.910

2.  A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of repeated cross-sectional cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 0.968

3.  The importance and role of intracluster correlations in planning cluster trials.

Authors:  John S Preisser; Beth A Reboussin; Eun-Young Song; Mark Wolfson
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Randomized controlled trial of the mySmartSkin web-based intervention to promote skin self-examination and sun protection behaviors among individuals diagnosed with melanoma: study design and baseline characteristics.

Authors:  Elliot J Coups; Sharon L Manne; Pamela Ohman Strickland; Michelle Hilgart; James S Goydos; Carolyn J Heckman; Paola Chamorro; Babar K Rao; Moira Davis; Franz O Smith; Frances P Thorndike; Lee M Ritterband
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Effectiveness of a primary care practice intervention for increasing colorectal cancer screening in Appalachian Kentucky.

Authors:  Mark Dignan; Brent Shelton; Stacey A Slone; Cheri Tolle; Sohail Mohammad; Nancy Schoenberg; Kevin Pearce; Emily Van Meter; Gretchen Ely
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  What is the role of quality circles in strategies to optimise antibiotic prescribing? A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial in primary care.

Authors:  M L van Driel; S Coenen; K Dirven; J Lobbestael; I Janssens; P Van Royen; F M Haaijer-Ruskamp; M De Meyere; J De Maeseneer; T Christiaens
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2007-06

7.  Efficacy of a strategy for implementing a guideline for the control of cardiovascular risk in a primary healthcare setting: the SIRVA2 study a controlled, blinded community intervention trial randomised by clusters.

Authors:  Francisco Rodríguez-Salvanés; Blanca Novella; María Jesús Fernández Luque; Luis María Sánchez-Gómez; Lourdes Ruiz-Díaz; Rosa Sánchez-Alcalde; Belén Sierra-García; Soledad Mayayo; Marta Ruiz-López; Pilar Loeches; Javier López-Gónzález; Amelia González-Gamarra
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 2.497

8.  A Promising Tool to Assess Long Term Public Health Effects of Natural Disasters: Combining Routine Health Survey Data and Geographic Information Systems to Assess Stunting after the 2001 Earthquake in Peru.

Authors:  Henny Rydberg; Gaetano Marrone; Susanne Strömdahl; Johan von Schreeb
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  Manuel Gomes; Edmond S-W Ng; Richard Grieve; Richard Nixon; James Carpenter; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  The 2001-03 Famine and the Dynamics of HIV in Malawi: A Natural Experiment.

Authors:  Michael Loevinsohn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.