BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized controlled trials increasingly are used to evaluate health interventions where patients are nested within larger clusters such as practices, hospitals or communities. Patients within a cluster may be similar to each other relative to patients in other clusters on key variables; therefore, sample size calculations and analyses of results require special statistical methods. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to illustrate the calculations used for sample size estimation and data analysis and to provide estimates of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for several variables using data from the Seniors Medication Assessment Research Trial (SMART), a community-based trial of pharmacists consulting to family physicians to optimize the drug therapy of older patients. METHODS: The study was a paired cluster randomized trial, where the family physician's practice was the cluster. The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesized reduction of 15% in mean daily units of medication in the intervention group compared with the control group, using an alpha of 0.05 (one-tailed) with 80% power, and an ICC from pilot data of 0.08. ICCs were estimated from the data for several variables. The analyses comparing the two groups used a random effects model for a meta-analysis over pairs. RESULTS: The design effect due to clustering was 2.12, resulting in an inflation in sample size from 340 patients required using individual randomization, to 720 patients using randomization of practices, with 15 patients from each of 48 practices. ICCs for medication use, health care utilization and general health were <0.1; however, the ICC for mean systolic blood pressure over the trial period was 0.199. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with individual randomization, cluster randomization may substantially increase the sample size required to maintain adequate statistical power. The differences in ICCs among potential outcome variables reinforce the need for valid estimates to ensure proper study design.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized controlled trials increasingly are used to evaluate health interventions where patients are nested within larger clusters such as practices, hospitals or communities. Patients within a cluster may be similar to each other relative to patients in other clusters on key variables; therefore, sample size calculations and analyses of results require special statistical methods. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to illustrate the calculations used for sample size estimation and data analysis and to provide estimates of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for several variables using data from the Seniors Medication Assessment Research Trial (SMART), a community-based trial of pharmacists consulting to family physicians to optimize the drug therapy of older patients. METHODS: The study was a paired cluster randomized trial, where the family physician's practice was the cluster. The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesized reduction of 15% in mean daily units of medication in the intervention group compared with the control group, using an alpha of 0.05 (one-tailed) with 80% power, and an ICC from pilot data of 0.08. ICCs were estimated from the data for several variables. The analyses comparing the two groups used a random effects model for a meta-analysis over pairs. RESULTS: The design effect due to clustering was 2.12, resulting in an inflation in sample size from 340 patients required using individual randomization, to 720 patients using randomization of practices, with 15 patients from each of 48 practices. ICCs for medication use, health care utilization and general health were <0.1; however, the ICC for mean systolic blood pressure over the trial period was 0.199. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with individual randomization, cluster randomization may substantially increase the sample size required to maintain adequate statistical power. The differences in ICCs among potential outcome variables reinforce the need for valid estimates to ensure proper study design.
Authors: Charlotte Gry Harmsen; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Pia Veldt Larsen; Jørgen Nexøe; Henrik Støvring; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jesper Bo Nielsen; Adrian Edwards; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Petra Jellema; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Henriëtte E van der Horst; Jos W R Twisk; Wim A B Stalman; Lex M Bouter Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-06-20
Authors: Georgia Robins Sadler; Celine Marie Ko; Jennifer Alisangco; Bradley P Rosbrook; Eric Miller; Judith Fullerton Journal: Appl Nurs Res Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.257
Authors: Anna D T Muntingh; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Harm W J van Marwijk; Philip Spinhoven; Willem J J Assendelft; Margot W M de Waal; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen; Herman J Adèr; Anton J L M van Balkom Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Saul Shiffman; Stuart G Ferguson; Chad J Gwaltney; Mark H Balabanis; William G Shadel Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Francisco Jódar-Sánchez; Amaia Malet-Larrea; José J Martín; Leticia García-Mochón; M Puerto López Del Amo; Fernando Martínez-Martínez; Miguel A Gastelurrutia-Garralda; Victoria García-Cárdenas; Daniel Sabater-Hernández; Loreto Sáez-Benito; Shalom I Benrimoj Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Amaia Malet-Larrea; Estíbaliz Goyenechea; Miguel A Gastelurrutia; Begoña Calvo; Victoria García-Cárdenas; Juan M Cabases; Aránzazu Noain; Fernando Martínez-Martínez; Daniel Sabater-Hernández; Shalom I Benrimoj Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2016-12-02
Authors: John Sellors; Janusz Kaczorowski; Connie Sellors; Lisa Dolovich; Christel Woodward; Andrew Willan; Ron Goeree; Roxanne Cosby; Kristina Trim; Rolf Sebaldt; Michelle Howard; Linda Hardcastle; Jeff Poston Journal: CMAJ Date: 2003-07-08 Impact factor: 8.262