Literature DB >> 12939779

Baseline adjustments for binary data in repeated cross-sectional cluster randomized trials.

R M Nixon1, S G Thompson.   

Abstract

Analysis of covariance models, which adjust for a baseline covariate, are often used to compare treatment groups in a controlled trial in which individuals are randomized. Such analysis adjusts for any baseline imbalance and usually increases the precision of the treatment effect estimate. We assess the value of such adjustments in the context of a cluster randomized trial with repeated cross-sectional design and a binary outcome. In such a design, a new sample of individuals is taken from the clusters at each measurement occasion, so that baseline adjustment has to be at the cluster level. Logistic regression models are used to analyse the data, with cluster level random effects to allow for different outcome probabilities in each cluster. We compare the estimated treatment effect and its precision in models that incorporate a covariate measuring the cluster level probabilities at baseline and those that do not. In two data sets, taken from a cluster randomized trial in the treatment of menorrhagia, the value of baseline adjustment is only evident when the number of subjects per cluster is large. We assess the generalizability of these findings by undertaking a simulation study, and find that increased precision of the treatment effect requires both large cluster sizes and substantial heterogeneity between clusters at baseline, but baseline imbalance arising by chance in a randomized study can always be effectively adjusted for. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12939779     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1483

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


  6 in total

1.  Limited impact on endoscopy demand from a primary care based 'test and treat' dyspepsia management strategy: the results of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Ian S Shaw; Roland M Valori; André Charlett; Cliodna A M McNulty
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.386

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.  Bayesian cohort and cross-sectional analyses of the PINCER trial: a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce medication errors in primary care.

Authors:  Karla Hemming; Peter J Chilton; Richard J Lilford; Anthony Avery; Aziz Sheikh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  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

5.  Taking the Analysis of Trial-Based Economic Evaluations to the Next Level: The Importance of Accounting for Clustering.

Authors:  Mohamed El Alili; Johanna M van Dongen; Keith S Goldfeld; Martijn W Heymans; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Non-pneumatic anti-shock garment (NASG), a first-aid device to decrease maternal mortality from obstetric hemorrhage: a cluster randomized trial.

Authors:  Suellen Miller; Eduardo F Bergel; Alison M El Ayadi; Luz Gibbons; Elizabeth A Butrick; Thulani Magwali; Gricelia Mkumba; Christine Kaseba; N T My Huong; Jillian D Geissler; Mario Merialdi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.