Literature DB >> 7481187

Breaking the matches in a paired t-test for community interventions when the number of pairs is small.

P Diehr1, D C Martin, T Koepsell, A Cheadle.   

Abstract

There is considerable interest in community interventions for health promotion, where the community is the experimental unit. Because such interventions are expensive, the number of experimental units (communities) is usually small. Because of the small number of communities involved, investigators often match treatment and control communities on demographic variables before randomization to minimize the possibility of a bad split. Unfortunately, matching has been shown to decrease the power of the design when the number of pairs is small, unless the matching variable is very highly correlated with the outcome variable (in this case, with change in the health behaviour). We used computer simulation to examine the performance of an approach in which we matched communities but performed an unmatched analysis. If the appropriate matching variables are unknown, and there are fewer than ten pairs, an unmatched design and analysis has the most power. If, however, one prefers a matched design, then for N < 10, power can be increased by performing an unmatched analysis of the matched data. We also discuss a variant of this procedure, in which an unmatched analysis is performed only if the matching 'did not work'.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7481187     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780141309

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


  45 in total

Review 1.  Methods in health service research. Evaluation of health interventions at area and organisation level.

Authors:  O C Ukoumunne; M C Gulliford; S Chinn; J A Sterne; P G Burney; A Donner
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-08-07

2.  School-based randomized controlled trial of an HIV/STD risk-reduction intervention for South African adolescents.

Authors:  John B Jemmott; Loretta S Jemmott; Ann O'Leary; Zolani Ngwane; Larry D Icard; Scarlett L Bellamy; Shasta F Jones; J Richard Landis; G Anita Heeren; Joanne C Tyler; Monde B Makiwane
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2010-10

3.  Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials.

Authors:  Allan Donner; Neil Klar
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Effectiveness of a Universal, Classroom-Based Preventive Intervention (PAX GBG) in Estonia: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Karin Streimann; Anne Selart; Aire Trummal
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2020-02

5.  Making policy practice in afterschool programs: a randomized controlled trial on physical activity changes.

Authors:  Michael W Beets; R Glenn Weaver; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; Jennifer Huberty; Dianne S Ward; Russell R Pate; Darcy Freedman; Brent Hutto; Justin B Moore; Aaron Beighle
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 6.  Cluster-Randomized Studies.

Authors:  Eva Lorenz; Sascha Köpke; Holger Pfaff; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Making Healthy Eating Policy Practice: A Group Randomized Controlled Trial on Changes in Snack Quality, Costs, and Consumption in After-School Programs.

Authors:  Michael W Beets; R Glenn Weaver; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; Jennifer Huberty; Dianne S Ward; Darcy Freedman; Brent Hutto; Justin B Moore; Aaron Beighle
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2016-06-17

8.  Design effect in multicenter studies: gain or loss of power?

Authors:  Emilie Vierron; Bruno Giraudeau
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Enhancing cancer screening in primary care: rationale, design, analysis plan, and recruitment results.

Authors:  David M Murray; Mira L Katz; Doug M Post; Michael L Pennell; Gregory S Young; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 2.226

10.  The Nutrition and Enjoyable Activity for Teen Girls (NEAT girls) randomized controlled trial for adolescent girls from disadvantaged secondary schools: rationale, study protocol, and baseline results.

Authors:  David R Lubans; Philip J Morgan; Deborah Dewar; Clare E Collins; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Anthony D Okely; Marijka J Batterham; Tara Finn; Robin Callister
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.