Literature DB >> 17238238

A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes.

Peter C Austin1.   

Abstract

Cluster randomization trials are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which intact clusters of subjects are randomized to either the intervention or to the control. Cluster randomization trials require different statistical methods of analysis than do conventional randomized controlled trials due to the potential presence of within-cluster homogeneity in responses. A variety of statistical methods have been proposed in the literature for the analysis of cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes. However, little is known about the relative statistical power of these methods to detect a statistically significant intervention effect. We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to examine the statistical power of three methods that compare cluster-specific response rates between arms of the trial: the t-test, the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and the permutation test; and three methods that compare subject-level response rates: an adjusted chi-square test, a logistic-normal random effects model, and a generalized estimating equations (GEE) method. In our simulations we allowed the number of clusters, the number of subjects per cluster, the intraclass correlation coefficient and the magnitude of the intervention effect to vary. We demonstrated that the GEE approach tended to have the highest power for detecting a statistically significant intervention effect. However, in most of the 240 scenarios examined, the differences between the competing statistical methods were negligible. The largest mean difference in power between any two different statistical methods across the 240 scenarios was 0.02. The largest observed difference in power between two different statistical methods across the 240 scenarios and 15 pair-wise comparisons of methods was 0.14.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17238238     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2813

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


  26 in total

1.  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

2.  Simulation Improves Procedural Protocol Adherence During Central Venous Catheter Placement: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Ithan D Peltan; Takashi Shiga; James A Gordon; Paul F Currier
Journal:  Simul Healthc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.929

3.  Sample size estimation for stratified individual and cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes.

Authors:  Lee Kennedy-Shaffer; Michael D Hughes
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Optimal design of longitudinal data analysis using generalized estimating equation models.

Authors:  Jingxia Liu; Graham A Colditz
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 2.207

5.  An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials with binary outcomes.

Authors:  Fan Li; Elizabeth L Turner; Patrick J Heagerty; David M Murray; William M Vollmer; Elizabeth R DeLong
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Risk factors for progression in children and young adults with IgA nephropathy: an analysis of 261 cases from the VALIGA European cohort.

Authors:  Rosanna Coppo; Danilo Lofaro; Roberta R Camilla; Shubha Bellur; Daniel Cattran; H Terence Cook; Ian S D Roberts; Licia Peruzzi; Alessandro Amore; Francesco Emma; Laura Fuiano; Ulla Berg; Rezan Topaloglu; Yelda Bilginer; Loreto Gesualdo; Rosaria Polci; Malgorzata Mizerska-Wasiak; Yasar Caliskan; Sigrid Lundberg; Giovanni Cancarini; Colin Geddes; Jack Wetzels; Andrzej Wiecek; Magdalena Durlik; Stefano Cusinato; Cristiana Rollino; Milena Maggio; Manuel Praga; Hilde K Smerud; Vladimir Tesar; Dita Maixnerova; Jonathan Barratt; Teresa Papalia; Renzo Bonofiglio; Gianna Mazzucco; Costantinos Giannakakis; Magnus Soderberg; Diclehan Orhan; Anna Maria Di Palma; Jadwiga Maldyk; Yasemin Ozluk; Birgitta Sudelin; Regina Tardanico; David Kipgen; Eric Steenbergen; Henryk Karkoszka; Agnieszka Perkowska-Ptasinska; Franco Ferrario; Eduardo Gutierrez; Eva Honsova
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 3.714

Review 7.  Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices.

Authors:  David M Murray; Sherri L Pals; Stephanie M George; Andrey Kuzmichev; Gabriel Y Lai; Jocelyn A Lee; Ranell L Myles; Shakira M Nelson
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  The utilization of appropriate osteoporosis medications improves following a multifaceted educational intervention: the Canadian quality circle project (CQC).

Authors:  George Ioannidis; Alexandra Papaioannou; Lehana Thabane; Amiram Gafni; Anthony Hodsman; Brent Kvern; Aleksandra Walsh; Famida Jiwa; Jonathan D Adachi
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 2.463

9.  Testing for heterogeneity among the components of a binary composite outcome in a clinical trial.

Authors:  Janice Pogue; Lehana Thabane; P J Devereaux; Salim Yusuf
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Comparison of Bayesian and classical methods in the analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome: the Community Hypertension Assessment Trial (CHAT).

Authors:  Jinhui Ma; Lehana Thabane; Janusz Kaczorowski; Larry Chambers; Lisa Dolovich; Tina Karwalajtys; Cheryl Levitt
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.