Literature DB >> 34978097

Sample size calculation in hierarchical 2 × 2 factorial trials with unequal cluster sizes.

Zizhong Tian1, Denise Esserman1,2, Guangyu Tong1,2, Ondrej Blaha1,2, James Dziura1,2, Peter Peduzzi1,2, Fan Li1,2,3.   

Abstract

Motivated by a suicide prevention trial with hierarchical treatment allocation (cluster-level and individual-level treatments), we address the sample size requirements for testing the treatment effects as well as their interaction. We assume a linear mixed model, within which two types of treatment effect estimands (controlled effect and marginal effect) are defined. For each null hypothesis corresponding to an estimand, we derive sample size formulas based on large-sample z-approximation, and provide finite-sample modifications based on a t-approximation. We relax the equal cluster size assumption and express the sample size formulas as functions of the mean and coefficient of variation of cluster sizes. We show that the sample size requirement for testing the controlled effect of the cluster-level treatment is more sensitive to cluster size variability than that for testing the controlled effect of the individual-level treatment; the same observation holds for testing the marginal effects. In addition, we show that the sample size for testing the interaction effect is proportional to that for testing the controlled or the marginal effect of the individual-level treatment. We conduct extensive simulations to validate the proposed sample size formulas, and find the empirical power agrees well with the predicted power for each test. Furthermore, the t-approximations often provide better control of type I error rate with a small number of clusters. Finally, we illustrate our sample size formulas to design the motivating suicide prevention factorial trial. The proposed methods are implemented in the R package H2x2Factorial.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  coefficient of variation; controlled effect; interaction test; linear mixed model; marginal effect; power analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34978097      PMCID: PMC8962918          DOI: 10.1002/sim.9284

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


  29 in total

1.  Sample size for a two-group comparison of repeated binary measurements using GEE.

Authors:  Sin-Ho Jung; Chul W Ahn
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-09-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Sample size for cluster randomized trials: effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method.

Authors:  Sandra M Eldridge; Deborah Ashby; Sally Kerry
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 7.196

3.  Efficient treatment allocation in 2 × 2 cluster randomized trials, when costs and variances are heterogeneous.

Authors:  Francesca Lemme; Gerard J P van Breukelen; Martijn P F Berger
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Sample size requirements for detecting treatment effect heterogeneity in cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  Siyun Yang; Fan Li; Monique A Starks; Adrian F Hernandez; Robert J Mentz; Kingshuk R Choudhury
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Power analysis for cluster randomized trials with multiple binary co-primary endpoints.

Authors:  Dateng Li; Jing Cao; Song Zhang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Sample size determination for GEE analyses of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  Fan Li; Elizabeth L Turner; John S Preisser
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Statistical Power in Two-Level Hierarchical Linear Models with Arbitrary Number of Factor Levels.

Authors:  Yongyun Shin; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Yu Cao
Journal:  J Stat Plan Inference       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 1.111

8.  Relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in cluster randomized and multicentre trials.

Authors:  Gerard J P van Breukelen; Math J J M Candel; Martijn P F Berger
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Cognitive-behavioral therapy for suicide prevention (CBT-SP): treatment model, feasibility, and acceptability.

Authors:  Barbara Stanley; Gregory Brown; David A Brent; Karen Wells; Kim Poling; John Curry; Betsy D Kennard; Ann Wagner; Mary F Cwik; Anat Brunstein Klomek; Tina Goldstein; Benedetto Vitiello; Shannon Barnett; Stephanie Daniel; Jennifer Hughes
Journal:  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 8.829

10.  Does response on the PHQ-9 Depression Questionnaire predict subsequent suicide attempt or suicide death?

Authors:  Gregory E Simon; Carolyn M Rutter; Do Peterson; Malia Oliver; Ursula Whiteside; Belinda Operskalski; Evette J Ludman
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 3.084

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.