Literature DB >> 23798334

Subject-level matching for imbalance in cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters.

Andrew C Leon1, Hakan Demirtas, Chunshan Li, Donald Hedeker.   

Abstract

In a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT), the number of randomized units is typically considerably smaller than in trials where the unit of randomization is the patient. If the number of randomized clusters is small, there is a reasonable chance of baseline imbalance between the experimental and control groups. This imbalance threatens the validity of inferences regarding post-treatment intervention effects unless an appropriate statistical adjustment is used. Here, we consider application of the propensity score adjustment for cluster RCTs. For the purpose of illustration, we apply the propensity adjustment to a cluster RCT that evaluated an intervention to reduce suicidal ideation and depression. This approach to adjusting imbalance had considerable bearing on the interpretation of results. A simulation study demonstrates that the propensity adjustment reduced well over 90% of the bias seen in unadjusted models for the specifications examined.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias reduction; cluster randomized controlled trials; propensity adjustment

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23798334     DOI: 10.1002/pst.1580

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharm Stat        ISSN: 1539-1604            Impact factor:   1.894


  4 in total

1.  Effect of a multifaceted educational intervention for anti-infectious measures on sepsis mortality: a cluster randomized trial.

Authors:  Frank Bloos; Hendrik Rüddel; Daniel Thomas-Rüddel; Daniel Schwarzkopf; Christine Pausch; Stephan Harbarth; Torsten Schreiber; Matthias Gründling; John Marshall; Philipp Simon; Mitchell M Levy; Manfred Weiss; Andreas Weyland; Herwig Gerlach; Tobias Schürholz; Christoph Engel; Claudia Matthäus-Krämer; Christian Scheer; Friedhelm Bach; Reimer Riessen; Bernhard Poidinger; Karin Dey; Norbert Weiler; Andreas Meier-Hellmann; Helene H Häberle; Gabriele Wöbker; Udo X Kaisers; Konrad Reinhart
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 2.  Review of Recent Methodological Developments in Group-Randomized Trials: Part 2-Analysis.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Turner; Melanie Prague; John A Gallis; Fan Li; David M Murray
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Problem-solving in caregiver-counselling (PLiP Study): study protocol of a cluster randomized pragmatic trial.

Authors:  Klaus Pfeiffer; Martin Hautzinger; Margarete Patak; Julia Grünwald; Clemens Becker; Diana Albrecht
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 3.921

4.  A study protocol for a non-randomised comparison trial evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of a mobile cognitive-behavioural programme with integrated coaching for anxious adults in primary care.

Authors:  Eva Szigethy; Francis Solano; Meredith Wallace; Dina L Perry; Lauren Morrell; Kathryn Scott; Megan Jones Bell; Megan Oser
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-01-13       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.