Literature DB >> 27680896

Choosing appropriate analysis methods for cluster randomised cross-over trials with a binary outcome.

Katy E Morgan1, Andrew B Forbes2, Ruth H Keogh1, Vipul Jairath3, Brennan C Kahan4.   

Abstract

In cluster randomised cross-over (CRXO) trials, clusters receive multiple treatments in a randomised sequence over time. In such trials, there is usual correlation between patients in the same cluster. In addition, within a cluster, patients in the same period may be more similar to each other than to patients in other periods. We demonstrate that it is necessary to account for these correlations in the analysis to obtain correct Type I error rates. We then use simulation to compare different methods of analysing a binary outcome from a two-period CRXO design. Our simulations demonstrated that hierarchical models without random effects for period-within-cluster, which do not account for any extra within-period correlation, performed poorly with greatly inflated Type I errors in many scenarios. In scenarios where extra within-period correlation was present, a hierarchical model with random effects for cluster and period-within-cluster only had correct Type I errors when there were large numbers of clusters; with small numbers of clusters, the error rate was inflated. We also found that generalised estimating equations did not give correct error rates in any scenarios considered. An unweighted cluster-level summary regression performed best overall, maintaining an error rate close to 5% for all scenarios, although it lost power when extra within-period correlation was present, especially for small numbers of clusters. Results from our simulation study show that it is important to model both levels of clustering in CRXO trials, and that any extra within-period correlation should be accounted for.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  binary outcomes; cluster randomised; cross-over; intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC); randomised trial

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27680896     DOI: 10.1002/sim.7137

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


  14 in total

1.  Provision of the progestogen-only pill by community pharmacies as bridging contraception for women receiving emergency contraception: the Bridge-it RCT.

Authors:  Sharon T Cameron; Anna Glasier; Lisa McDaid; Andrew Radley; Susan Patterson; Paula Baraitser; Judith Stephenson; Richard Gilson; Claire Battison; Kathleen Cowle; Thenmalar Vadiveloo; Anne Johnstone; Alessandra Morelli; Beatriz Goulao; Mark Forrest; Alison McDonald; John Norrie
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 4.014

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.  Power and sample size requirements for GEE analyses of cluster randomized crossover trials.

Authors:  Fan Li; Andrew B Forbes; Elizabeth L Turner; John S Preisser
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Increasing Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination Uptake in Seniors Using Point-of-Care Informational Interventions in Primary Care in Singapore: A Pragmatic, Cluster-Randomized Crossover Trial.

Authors:  Hanley J Ho; Yi-Roe Tan; Alex R Cook; Gerald Koh; Tat Yean Tham; Eve Anwar; Grace Shu Hui Chiang; May O Lwin; Mark I Chen
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Understanding the cluster randomised crossover design: a graphical illustraton of the components of variation and a sample size tutorial.

Authors:  Sarah J Arnup; Joanne E McKenzie; Karla Hemming; David Pilcher; Andrew B Forbes
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Analysis of cluster randomised stepped wedge trials with repeated cross-sectional samples.

Authors:  Karla Hemming; Monica Taljaard; Andrew Forbes
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-03-04       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Bias and inference from misspecified mixed-effect models in stepped wedge trial analysis.

Authors:  Jennifer A Thompson; Katherine L Fielding; Calum Davey; Alexander M Aiken; James R Hargreaves; Richard J Hayes
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-05-28       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Cluster-randomized crossover trial of chlorhexidine-alcohol versus iodine-alcohol for prevention of surgical-site infection (SKINFECT trial).

Authors:  L S Aho Glélé; P Ortega-Deballon; A Guilloteau; O Keita-Perse; K Astruc; D Lepelletier
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-04-30

9.  Design and analysis of a 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria: Small sample considerations for cluster-randomized trials with count data.

Authors:  Conner L Jackson; Kathryn Colborn; Dexiang Gao; Sangeeta Rao; Hannah C Slater; Sunil Parikh; Brian D Foy; John Kittelson
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 2.486

10.  Use of effective contraception following provision of the progestogen-only pill for women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (Bridge-It): a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial.

Authors:  Sharon T Cameron; Anna Glasier; Lisa McDaid; Andrew Radley; Paula Baraitser; Judith Stephenson; Richard Gilson; Claire Battison; Kathleen Cowle; Mark Forrest; Beatriz Goulao; Anne Johnstone; Alessandra Morelli; Susan Patterson; Alison McDonald; Thenmalar Vadiveloo; John Norrie
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 202.731

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.