Dataset Information

Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses in cluster-randomized trials.

ABSTRACT: Researchers often have informative hypotheses in mind when comparing means across treatment groups, such as H₁?:??_A?B?C and H₂?:??_B?A?C, and want to compare these hypotheses to each other directly. This can be done by means of Bayesian inference. This article discusses the disadvantages of the frequentist approach to null hypothesis testing and the advantages of the Bayesian approach. It demonstrates how to use the Bayesian approach to hypothesis testing in the setting of cluster-randomized trials. The data from a school-based smoking prevention intervention with four treatment groups are used to illustrate the Bayesian approach. The main advantage of the Bayesian approach is that it provides a degree of evidence from the collected data in favor of an informative hypothesis. Furthermore, a simulation study was conducted to investigate how Bayes factors behave with cluster-randomized trials. The results from the simulation study showed that the Bayes factor increases with increasing number of clusters, cluster size, and effect size, and decreases with increasing intraclass correlation coefficient. The effect of the number of clusters is stronger than the effect of cluster size. With a small number of clusters, the effect of increasing cluster size may be weak, especially when the intraclass correlation coefficient is large. In conclusion, the study showed that the Bayes factor is affected by sample size and intraclass correlation similarly to how these parameters affect statistical power in the frequentist approach of null hypothesis significance testing. Bayesian evaluation may be used as an alternative to null hypotheses testing.

SUBMITTER: Moerbeek M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6420439 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses in cluster-randomized trials.

Moerbeek Mirjam M

Behavior research methods 20190201 1

Researchers often have informative hypotheses in mind when comparing means across treatment groups, such as H1 : μA < μB < μC and H2 : μB < μA < μC, and want to compare these hypotheses to each other directly. This can be done by means of Bayesian inference. This article discusses the disadvantages of the frequentist approach to null hypothesis testing and the advantages of the Bayesian approach. It demonstra ...[more]

PMID: 30350025

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent work has shown that cluster-randomised trials can estimate two distinct estimands: the participant-average and cluster-average treatment effects. These can differ when participant outcomes or the treatment effect depends on the cluster size (termed informative cluster size). In this case, estimators that target one estimand (such as the analysis of unweighted cluster-level summaries, which targets the cluster-average effect) may be biased for the other. Furthermore, commonly used estimators such as mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure can be biased for both estimands. However, there has been little empirical research into whether informative cluster size is likely to occur in practice.MethodWe re-analysed a cluster-randomised trial comparing two different thresholds for red blood cell transfusion in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding to explore whether estimates for the participant- and cluster-average effects differed, to provide empirical evidence for whether informative cluster size may be present. For each outcome, we first estimated a participant-average effect using independence estimating equations, which are unbiased under informative cluster size. We then compared this to two further methods: (1) a cluster-average effect estimated using either weighted independence estimating equations or unweighted cluster-level summaries, and (2) estimates from a mixed-effects model or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure. We then performed a small simulation study to evaluate whether observed differences between cluster- and participant-average estimates were likely to occur even if no informative cluster size was present.ResultsFor most outcomes, treatment effect estimates from different methods were similar. However, differences of >10% occurred between participant- and cluster-average estimates for 5 of 17 outcomes (29%). We also observed several notable differences between estimates from mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure and those based on independence estimating equations. For example, for the EQ-5D VAS score, the independence estimating equation estimate of the participant-average difference was 4.15 (95% confidence interval: -3.37 to 11.66), compared with 2.84 (95% confidence interval: -7.37 to 13.04) for the cluster-average independence estimating equation estimate, and 3.23 (95% confidence interval: -6.70 to 13.16) from a mixed-effects model. Similarly, for thromboembolic/ischaemic events, the independence estimating equation estimate for the participant-average odds ratio was 0.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.07 to 2.48), compared with 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 1.77) from the cluster-average estimator.ConclusionIn this re-analysis, we found that estimates from the various approaches could differ, which may be due to the presence of informative cluster size. Careful consideration of the estimand and the plausibility of assumptions underpinning each estimator can help ensure an appropriate analysis methods are used. Independence estimating equations and the analysis of cluster-level summaries (with appropriate weighting for each to correspond to either the participant-average or cluster-average treatment effect) are a desirable choice when informative cluster size is deemed possible, due to their unbiasedness in this setting.

Project description:BackgroundMany clinical trial designs are impractical for community-based clinical intervention trials. Stepped wedge trial designs provide practical advantages, but few descriptions exist of their clinical implementational features, statistical design efficiencies, and limitations.ObjectivesEnhance efficiency of stepped wedge trial designs by evaluating the impact of design characteristics on statistical power for the British Columbia Telehealth Trial.MethodsThe British Columbia Telehealth Trial is a community-based, cluster-randomized, controlled clinical trial in rural and urban British Columbia. To determine the effect of an Internet-based telehealth intervention on healthcare utilization, 1000 subjects with an existing diagnosis of congestive heart failure or type 2 diabetes will be enrolled from 50 clinical practices. Hospital utilization is measured using a composite of disease-specific hospital admissions and emergency visits. The intervention comprises online telehealth data collection and counseling provided to support a disease-specific action plan developed by the primary care provider. The planned intervention is sequentially introduced across all participating practices. We adopt a fully Bayesian, Markov chain Monte Carlo-driven statistical approach, wherein we use simulation to determine the effect of cluster size, sample size, and crossover interval choice on type I error and power to evaluate differences in hospital utilization.ResultsFor our Bayesian stepped wedge trial design, simulations suggest moderate decreases in power when crossover intervals from control to intervention are reduced from every 3 to 2 weeks, and dramatic decreases in power as the numbers of clusters decrease. Power and type I error performance were not notably affected by the addition of nonzero cluster effects or a temporal trend in hospitalization intensity.Conclusion/limitationsStepped wedge trial designs that intervene in small clusters across longer periods can provide enhanced power to evaluate comparative effectiveness, while offering practical implementation advantages in geographic stratification, temporal change, use of existing data, and resource distribution. Current population estimates were used; however, models may not reflect actual event rates during the trial. In addition, temporal or spatial heterogeneity can bias treatment effect estimates.

Project description:BackgroundIn cluster randomized crossover (CRXO) trials, groups of participants (i.e., clusters) are randomly allocated to receive a sequence of interventions over time (i.e., cluster periods). CRXO trials are becoming more comment when they are feasible, as they require fewer clusters than parallel group cluster randomized trials. However, CRXO trials have not been frequently used in orthopedic fracture trials and represent a novel methodological application within the field. To disseminate the early knowledge gained from our experience initiating two cluster randomized crossover trials, we describe our process for the identification and selection of the orthopedic practices (i.e., clusters) participating in the PREP-IT program and present data to describe their key characteristics.MethodsThe PREP-IT program comprises two ongoing pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trials (Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE) which compare the effect of iodophor versus chlorhexidine solutions on surgical site infection and unplanned fracture-related reoperations in patients undergoing operative fracture management. We describe the process we used to identify and select orthopedic practices (clusters) for the PREP-IT trials, along with their characteristics.ResultsWe identified 58 potential orthopedic practices for inclusion in the PREP-IT trials. After screening each practice for eligibility, we selected 30 practices for participation and randomized each to a sequence of interventions (15 for Aqueous-PREP and 20 for PREPARE). The majority of orthopedic practices included in the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE trials were situated in level I trauma centers (100% and 87%, respectively). Orthopedic practices in the Aqueous-PREP trial operatively treated a median of 149 open fracture patients per year, included a median of 11 orthopedic surgeons, and had access to a median of 5 infection preventionists. Orthopedic practices in the PREPARE trial treated a median of 142 open fracture and 1090 closed fracture patients per year, included a median of 7.5 orthopedic surgeons, and had access to a median of 6 infection preventionists.ConclusionsThe PREP-IT trials provide an example of how to follow the reporting standards for cluster randomized crossover trials by providing a clear definition of the cluster unit, a thorough description of the cluster identification and selection process, and sufficient description of key cluster characteristics.Trial registrationBoth trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (A-PREP: NCT03385304 December 28, 2017, and PREPARE: NCT03523962 May 14, 2018).

Dataset Information

Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses in cluster-randomized trials.

Publications

Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses in cluster-randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets