Dataset Information

Relative efficiency of unequal cluster sizes in stepped wedge and other trial designs under longitudinal or cross-sectional sampling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A cluster trial with unequal cluster sizes often has lower precision than one with equal clusters, with a corresponding inflation of the design effect. For parallel group trials, adjustments to the design effect are available under sampling models with a single intracluster correlation. Design effects for equal clusters under more complex scenarios have appeared recently (including stepped wedge trials under cross-sectional or longitudinal sampling). We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size in these more general settings.

Results

Assuming a linear mixed model with an exchangeable correlation structure that incorporates cluster and subject autocorrelation, we compute the relative efficiency (RE) of a trial with clusters of unequal size under a size-stratified randomization scheme, as compared to an equal cluster trial with the same total number of observations. If there are no within-cluster time effects, the RE exceeds that for a parallel trial. In general, the RE is a weighted average of the RE for a parallel trial and the RE for a crossover trial in the same clusters. Existing approximations for parallel designs are extended to the general setting. Increasing the cluster size by the factor (1 + CV² ), where CV is the coefficient of variation of cluster size, leads to conservative sample sizes, as in a popular method for parallel trials.

Conclusion

Methods to assess experimental precision for single-period parallel trials with unequal cluster sizes can be extended to stepped wedge and other complete layouts under longitudinal or cross-sectional sampling. In practice, the loss of precision due to unequal cluster sizes is unlikely to exceed 12%.

SUBMITTER: Girling AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6635744 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Relative efficiency of unequal cluster sizes in stepped wedge and other trial designs under longitudinal or cross-sectional sampling.

Girling Alan J AJ

Statistics in medicine 20180912 30

<h4>Background</h4>A cluster trial with unequal cluster sizes often has lower precision than one with equal clusters, with a corresponding inflation of the design effect. For parallel group trials, adjustments to the design effect are available under sampling models with a single intracluster correlation. Design effects for equal clusters under more complex scenarios have appeared recently (including stepped wedge trials under cross-sectional or longitudinal sampling). We investigate the impact ...[more]

PMID: 30209812

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a cross-sectional stepped-wedge trial with unequal cluster sizes, attained power in the trial depends on the realized allocation of the clusters. This attained power may differ from the expected power calculated using standard formulae by averaging the attained powers over all allocations the randomization algorithm can generate. We investigated the effect of design factors and allocation characteristics on attained power and developed models to predict attained power based on allocation characteristics.MethodBased on data simulated and analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, we evaluated the distribution of attained powers under different scenarios with varying intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the responses, coefficient of variation (CV) of the cluster sizes, number of cluster-size groups, distributions of group sizes, and number of clusters. We explored the relationship between attained power and two allocation characteristics: the individual-level correlation between treatment status and time period, and the absolute treatment group imbalance. When computational time was excessive due to a scenario having a large number of possible allocations, we developed regression models to predict attained power using the treatment-vs-time period correlation and absolute treatment group imbalance as predictors.ResultsThe risk of attained power falling more than 5% below the expected or nominal power decreased as the ICC or number of clusters increased and as the CV decreased. Attained power was strongly affected by the treatment-vs-time period correlation. The absolute treatment group imbalance had much less impact on attained power. The attained power for any allocation was predicted accurately using a logistic regression model with the treatment-vs-time period correlation and the absolute treatment group imbalance as predictors.ConclusionIn a stepped-wedge trial with unequal cluster sizes, the risk that randomization yields an allocation with inadequate attained power depends on the ICC, the CV of the cluster sizes, and number of clusters. To reduce the computational burden of simulating attained power for allocations, the attained power can be predicted via regression modeling. Trial designers can reduce the risk of low attained power by restricting the randomization algorithm to avoid allocations with large treatment-vs-time period correlations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cluster randomised trials with unequal sized clusters often have lower precision than with clusters of equal size. To allow for this, sample sizes are inflated by a modified version of the design effect for clustering. These inflation factors are valid under the assumption that randomisation is stratified by cluster size. We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size when that constraint is relaxed, with particular focus on the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, where this is more difficult to achieve. METHODS:Assuming a multi-level mixed effect model with exchangeable correlation structure for a cross-sectional design, we use simulation methods to compare the precision for a trial with clusters of unequal size to a trial with clusters of equal size (relative efficiency). For a range of scenarios we illustrate the impact of various design features (the cluster-mean correlation - a function of the intracluster correlation and the cluster size, the number of clusters, number of randomisation sequences) on the average and distribution of the relative efficiency. RESULTS:Simulations confirm that the average reduction in precision, due to varying cluster sizes, is smaller in a stepped-wedge trial compared to the parallel trial. However, the variance of the distribution of the relative efficiency is large; and is larger under the stepped-wedge design compared to the parallel design. This can result in large variations in actual power, depending on the allocation of clusters to sequences. Designs with larger variations in cluster sizes, smaller number of clusters and studies with smaller cluster-mean correlations (smaller cluster sizes or smaller intra-cluster correlation) are particularly at risk. CONCLUSION:The actual realised power in a stepped-wedge trial might be substantially higher or lower than that estimated. This is particularly important when there are a small number of clusters or the variability in cluster sizes is large. Constraining the randomisation on cluster size, where feasible, might mitigate this effect.

Project description:In a cluster-randomized trial (CRT), the number of participants enrolled often varies across clusters. This variation should be considered during both trial design and data analysis to ensure statistical performance goals are achieved. Most methodological literature on the CRT design has assumed equal cluster sizes. This scoping review focuses on methodology for unequal cluster size CRTs. EMBASE, Medline, Google Scholar, MathSciNet and Web of Science databases were searched to identify English-language articles reporting on methodology for unequal cluster size CRTs published until March 2021. We extracted data on the focus of the paper (power calculation, Type I error etc.), the type of CRT, the type and the range of parameter values investigated (number of clusters, mean cluster size, cluster size coefficient of variation, intra-cluster correlation coefficient, etc.), and the main conclusions. Seventy-nine of 5032 identified papers met the inclusion criteria. Papers primarily focused on the parallel-arm CRT (p-CRT, n = 60, 76%) and the stepped-wedge CRT (n = 14, 18%). Roughly 75% of the papers addressed trial design issues (sample size/power calculation) while 25% focused on analysis considerations (Type I error, bias, etc.). The ranges of parameter values explored varied substantially across different studies. Methods for accounting for unequal cluster sizes in the p-CRT have been investigated extensively for Gaussian and binary outcomes. Synthesizing the findings of these works is difficult as the magnitude of impact of the unequal cluster sizes varies substantially across the combinations and ranges of input parameters. Limited investigations have been done for other combinations of a CRT design by outcome type, particularly methodology involving binary outcomes-the most commonly used type of primary outcome in trials. The paucity of methodological papers outside of the p-CRT with Gaussian or binary outcomes highlights the need for further methodological development to fill the gaps.

Dataset Information

Relative efficiency of unequal cluster sizes in stepped wedge and other trial designs under longitudinal or cross-sectional sampling.

Background

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Relative efficiency of unequal cluster sizes in stepped wedge and other trial designs under longitudinal or cross-sectional sampling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets