Literature DB >> 31475383

How many times should a cluster randomized crossover trial cross over?

Kelsey L Grantham1, Jessica Kasza1, Stephane Heritier1, Karla Hemming2, Edward Litton3,4,5, Andrew B Forbes1.   

Abstract

Trial planning requires making efficient yet practical design choices. In a cluster randomized crossover trial, clusters of subjects cross back and forth between implementing the control and intervention conditions over the course of the trial, with each crossover marking the start of a new period. If it is possible to set up such a trial with more crossovers, a pertinent question is whether there are efficiency gains from clusters crossing over more frequently, and if these gains are substantial enough to justify the added complexity and cost of implementing more crossovers. We seek to determine the optimal number of crossovers for a fixed trial duration, and then identify other highly efficient designs by allowing the total number of clusters to vary and imposing thresholds on maximum cost and minimum statistical power. Our results pertain to trials with continuous recruitment and a continuous primary outcome, with the treatment effect estimated using a linear mixed model. To account for the similarity between subjects' outcomes within a cluster, we assume a correlation structure in which the correlation decays gradually in a continuous manner as the time between subjects' measurements increases. The optimal design is characterized by crossovers between the control and intervention conditions with each successive subject. However, this design is neither practical nor cost-efficient to implement, nor is it necessary: the gains in efficiency increase sharply in moving from a two-period to a four-period trial design, but approach an asymptote for the scenarios considered as the number of crossovers continues to increase.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cluster crossover; cluster randomized trial; continuous recruitment design; correlation decay; linear mixed model; optimal design

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31475383     DOI: 10.1002/sim.8349

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


  4 in total

1.  Effectiveness of Iodophor vs Chlorhexidine Solutions for Surgical Site Infections and Unplanned Reoperations for Patients Who Underwent Fracture Repair: The PREP-IT Master Protocol.

Authors:  Gerard P Slobogean; Sheila Sprague; Jeffrey Wells; Mohit Bhandari; Alejandra Rojas; Alisha Garibaldi; Amber Wood; Andrea Howe; Anthony D Harris; Bradley A Petrisor; Daniel C Mullins; David Pogorzelski; Debra Marvel; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Franca Mossuto; Frances Grissom; Gina Del Fabbro; Gordon H Guyatt; Gregory J Della Rocca; Haley K Demyanovich; I Leah Gitajn; Jana Palmer; Jean-Claude D'Alleyrand; Jeff Friedrich; Jessica Rivera; Joan Hebden; Joshua Rudnicki; Justin Fowler; Kyle J Jeray; Lehana Thabane; Lucas Marchand; Lyndsay M O'Hara; Manjari G Joshi; Max Talbot; Megan Camara; Olivia Paige Szasz; Nathan N O'Hara; Paula McKay; P J Devereaux; Robert V O'Toole; Robert Zura; Saam Morshed; Shannon Dodds; Silvia Li; Stephanie L Tanner; Taryn Scott; Uyen Nguyen
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-04-01

2.  New Insights into the Comparative Effectiveness of Fentanyl and Morphine Infusions in ICU Patients.

Authors:  Paul J Young; Audrey De Jong
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  The cluster randomized crossover trial: The effects of attrition in the AB/BA design and how to account for it in sample size calculations.

Authors:  Mirjam Moerbeek
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  The hunt for efficient, incomplete designs for stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment and continuous outcome measures.

Authors:  Richard Hooper; Jessica Kasza; Andrew Forbes
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 4.615

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.