Sample size estimation for stratified individual and cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kennedy-Shaffer L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7247053 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The modified Poisson regression coupled with a robust sandwich variance has become a viable alternative to log-binomial regression for estimating the marginal relative risk in cluster randomized trials. However, a corresponding sample size formula for relative risk regression via the modified Poisson model is currently not available for cluster randomized trials. Through analytical derivations, we show that there is no loss of asymptotic efficiency for estimating the marginal relative risk via the modified Poisson regression relative to the log-binomial regression. This finding holds both under the independence working correlation and under the exchangeable working correlation provided a simple modification is used to obtain the consistent intraclass correlation coefficient estimate. Therefore, the sample size formulas developed for log-binomial regression naturally apply to the modified Poisson regression in cluster randomized trials. We further extend the sample size formulas to accommodate variable cluster sizes. An extensive Monte Carlo simulation study is carried out to validate the proposed formulas. We find that the proposed formulas have satisfactory performance across a range of cluster size variability, as long as suitable finite-sample corrections are applied to the sandwich variance estimator and the number of clusters is at least 10. Our findings also suggest that the sample size estimate under the exchangeable working correlation is more robust to cluster size variability, and recommend the use of an exchangeable working correlation over an independence working correlation for both design and analysis. The proposed sample size formulas are illustrated using the Stop Colorectal Cancer (STOP CRC) trial.
| S-EPMC9132618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Justifying sample size for a pilot trial is a reporting requirement, but few pilot trials report a clear rationale for their chosen sample size. Unlike full-scale trials, pilot trials should not be designed to test effectiveness, and so, conventional sample size justification approaches do not apply. Rather, pilot trials typically specify a range of primary and secondary feasibility objectives. Often, these objectives relate to estimation of parameters that inform the sample size justification for the full-scale trial, many of which are binary. These binary outcomes are referred to as "feasibility outcomes" and include expected prevalence of the primary trial outcome, primary outcome availability, or recruitment or retention proportions.For pilot cluster trials, sample size calculations depend on the number of clusters, the cluster sizes, the anticipated intra-cluster correlation coefficient for the feasibility outcome and the anticipated proportion for that outcome. Of key importance is the intra-cluster correlation coefficient for the feasibility outcome. It has been suggested that correlations for feasibility outcomes are larger than for clinical outcomes measuring effectiveness. Yet, there is a dearth of information on realised values for these correlations.In this tutorial, we demonstrate how to justify sample size in external pilot cluster trials where the objective is to estimate a binary feasibility outcome. We provide sample size calculation formulae for a variety of scenarios, make available an R Shiny app for implementation, and compile a report of intra-cluster correlations for feasibility outcomes from a convenience sample. We demonstrate that unless correlations are very low, external pilot cluster trials can be made more efficient by including more clusters and fewer observations per cluster.
| S-EPMC10507981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsGeneralized estimating equations are commonly used to fit logistic regression models to clustered binary data from cluster randomized trials. A commonly used correlation structure assumes that the intracluster correlation coefficient does not vary by treatment arm or other covariates, but the consequences of this assumption are understudied. We aim to evaluate the effect of allowing variation of the intracluster correlation coefficient by treatment or other covariates on the efficiency of analysis and show how to account for such variation in sample size calculations.MethodsWe develop formulae for the asymptotic variance of the estimated difference in outcome between treatment arms obtained when the true exchangeable correlation structure depends on the treatment arm and the working correlation structure used in the generalized estimating equations analysis is: (i) correctly specified, (ii) independent, or (iii) exchangeable with no dependence on treatment arm. These formulae require a known distribution of cluster sizes; we also develop simplifications for the case when cluster sizes do not vary and approximations that can be used when the first two moments of the cluster size distribution are known. We then extend the results to settings with adjustment for a second binary cluster-level covariate. We provide formulae to calculate the required sample size for cluster randomized trials using these variances.ResultsWe show that the asymptotic variance of the estimated difference in outcome between treatment arms using these three working correlation structures is the same if all clusters have the same size, and this asymptotic variance is approximately the same when intracluster correlation coefficient values are small. We illustrate these results using data from a recent cluster randomized trial for infectious disease prevention in which the clusters are groups of households and modest in size (mean 9.6 individuals), with intracluster correlation coefficient values of 0.078 in the control arm and 0.057 in an intervention arm. In this application, we found a negligible difference between the variances calculated using structures (i) and (iii) and only a small increase (typically <5%) for the independent correlation structure (ii), and hence minimal effect on power or sample size requirements. The impact may be larger in other applications if there is greater variation in the ICC between treatment arms or with an additional covariate.ConclusionThe common approach of fitting generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable working correlation structure with a common intracluster correlation coefficient across arms likely does not substantially reduce the power or efficiency of the analysis in the setting of a large number of small or modest-sized clusters, even if the intracluster correlation coefficient varies by treatment arm. Our formulae, however, allow formal evaluation of this and may identify situations in which variation in intracluster correlation coefficient by treatment arm or another binary covariate may have a more substantial impact on power and hence sample size requirements.
| S-EPMC8883478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of cluster randomized trials (CRTs) is increasing, along with the variety in their design and analysis. The simplest approach for their sample size calculation is to calculate the sample size assuming individual randomization and inflate this by a design effect to account for randomization by cluster. The assumptions of a simple design effect may not always be met; alternative or more complicated approaches are required.MethodsWe summarise a wide range of sample size methods available for cluster randomized trials. For those familiar with sample size calculations for individually randomized trials but with less experience in the clustered case, this manuscript provides formulae for a wide range of scenarios with associated explanation and recommendations. For those with more experience, comprehensive summaries are provided that allow quick identification of methods for a given design, outcome and analysis method.ResultsWe present first those methods applicable to the simplest two-arm, parallel group, completely randomized design followed by methods that incorporate deviations from this design such as: variability in cluster sizes; attrition; non-compliance; or the inclusion of baseline covariates or repeated measures. The paper concludes with methods for alternative designs.ConclusionsThere is a large amount of methodology available for sample size calculations in CRTs. This paper gives the most comprehensive description of published methodology for sample size calculation and provides an important resource for those designing these trials.
| S-EPMC4521133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Risk-prediction models for health outcomes are used in practice as part of clinical decision-making, and it is essential that their performance be externally validated. An important aspect in the design of a validation study is choosing an adequate sample size. In this paper, we investigate the sample size requirements for validation studies with binary outcomes to estimate measures of predictive performance (C-statistic for discrimination and calibration slope and calibration in the large). We aim for sufficient precision in the estimated measures. In addition, we investigate the sample size to achieve sufficient power to detect a difference from a target value. Under normality assumptions on the distribution of the linear predictor, we obtain simple estimators for sample size calculations based on the measures above. Simulation studies show that the estimators perform well for common values of the C-statistic and outcome prevalence when the linear predictor is marginally Normal. Their performance deteriorates only slightly when the normality assumptions are violated. We also propose estimators which do not require normality assumptions but require specification of the marginal distribution of the linear predictor and require the use of numerical integration. These estimators were also seen to perform very well under marginal normality. Our sample size equations require a specified standard error (SE) and the anticipated C-statistic and outcome prevalence. The sample size requirement varies according to the prognostic strength of the model, outcome prevalence, choice of the performance measure and study objective. For example, to achieve an SE < 0.025 for the C-statistic, 60-170 events are required if the true C-statistic and outcome prevalence are between 0.64-0.85 and 0.05-0.3, respectively. For the calibration slope and calibration in the large, achieving SE < 0.15 would require 40-280 and 50-100 events, respectively. Our estimators may also be used for survival outcomes when the proportion of censored observations is high.
| S-EPMC8529102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cluster-level dynamic treatment regimens can be used to guide sequential treatment decision-making at the cluster level in order to improve outcomes at the individual or patient-level. In a cluster-level dynamic treatment regimen, the treatment is potentially adapted and re-adapted over time based on changes in the cluster that could be impacted by prior intervention, including aggregate measures of the individuals or patients that compose it. Cluster-randomized sequential multiple assignment randomized trials can be used to answer multiple open questions preventing scientists from developing high-quality cluster-level dynamic treatment regimens. In a cluster-randomized sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, sequential randomizations occur at the cluster level and outcomes are observed at the individual level. This manuscript makes two contributions to the design and analysis of cluster-randomized sequential multiple assignment randomized trials. First, a weighted least squares regression approach is proposed for comparing the mean of a patient-level outcome between the cluster-level dynamic treatment regimens embedded in a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. The regression approach facilitates the use of baseline covariates which is often critical in the analysis of cluster-level trials. Second, sample size calculators are derived for two common cluster-randomized sequential multiple assignment randomized trial designs for use when the primary aim is a between-dynamic treatment regimen comparison of the mean of a continuous patient-level outcome. The methods are motivated by the Adaptive Implementation of Effective Programs Trial which is, to our knowledge, the first-ever cluster-randomized sequential multiple assignment randomized trial in psychiatry.
| S-EPMC5802435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are widely used in epidemiological and public health studies assessing population-level effect of group-based interventions. One important application of CRTs is the control of vector-borne disease, such as malaria. However, a particular challenge for designing these trials is that the primary outcome involves counts of episodes that are subject to right truncation. While sample size formulas have been developed for CRTs with clustered counts, they are not directly applicable when the counts are right truncated. To address this limitation, we discuss two marginal modeling approaches for the analysis of CRTs with truncated counts and develop two corresponding closed-form sample size formulas to facilitate the design of such trials. The proposed sample size formulas allow investigators to explore the power under a large number of scenarios without computationally intensive simulations. The proposed formulas are validated in extensive simulations. We further explore the implication of right truncation on power and apply the proposed formulas to illustrate the power calculation for a malaria control CRT where the primary outcome is subject to right truncation.
| S-EPMC9132617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bayesian analysis of a non-inferiority trial is advantageous in allowing direct probability statements to be made about the relative treatment difference rather than relying on an arbitrary and often poorly justified non-inferiority margin. When the primary analysis will be Bayesian, a Bayesian approach to sample size determination will often be appropriate for consistency with the analysis. We demonstrate three Bayesian approaches to choosing sample size for non-inferiority trials with binary outcomes and review their advantages and disadvantages. First, we present a predictive power approach for determining sample size using the probability that the trial will produce a convincing result in the final analysis. Next, we determine sample size by considering the expected posterior probability of non-inferiority in the trial. Finally, we demonstrate a precision-based approach. We apply these methods to a non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV-infected children. A predictive power approach would be most accessible in practical settings, because it is analogous to the standard frequentist approach. Sample sizes are larger than with frequentist calculations unless an informative analysis prior is specified, because appropriate allowance is made for uncertainty in the assumed design parameters, ignored in frequentist calculations. An expected posterior probability approach will lead to a smaller sample size and is appropriate when the focus is on estimating posterior probability rather than on testing. A precision-based approach would be useful when sample size is restricted by limits on recruitment or costs, but it would be difficult to decide on sample size using this approach alone.
| S-EPMC7615731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When calculating sample size or power for stepped wedge or other types of longitudinal cluster randomized trials, it is critical that the planned sampling structure be accurately specified. One common assumption is that participants will provide measurements in each trial period, that is, a closed cohort, and another is that each participant provides only one measurement during the course of the trial. However some studies have an "open cohort" sampling structure, where participants may provide measurements in variable numbers of periods. To date, sample size calculations for longitudinal cluster randomized trials have not accommodated open cohorts. Feldman and McKinlay (1994) provided some guidance, stating that the participant-level autocorrelation could be varied to account for the degree of overlap in different periods of the study, but did not indicate precisely how to do so. We present sample size and power formulas that allow for open cohorts and discuss the impact of the degree of "openness" on sample size and power. We consider designs where the number of participants in each cluster will be maintained throughout the trial, but individual participants may provide differing numbers of measurements. Our results are a unification of closed cohort and repeated cross-sectional sample results of Hooper et al (2016), and indicate precisely how participant autocorrelation of Feldman and McKinlay should be varied to account for an open cohort sampling structure. We discuss different types of open cohort sampling schemes and how open cohort sampling structure impacts on power in the presence of decaying within-cluster correlations and autoregressive participant-level errors.
| S-EPMC7217159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) refer to experiments with randomization carried out at the cluster or the group level. While numerous statistical methods have been developed for the design and analysis of CRTs, most of the existing methods focused on testing the overall treatment effect across the population characteristics, with few discussions on the differential treatment effect among subpopulations. In addition, the sample size and power requirements for detecting differential treatment effect in CRTs remain unclear, but are helpful for studies planned with such an objective. In this article, we develop a new sample size formula for detecting treatment effect heterogeneity in two-level CRTs for continuous outcomes, continuous or binary covariates measured at cluster or individual level. We also investigate the roles of two intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs): the adjusted ICC for the outcome of interest and the marginal ICC for the covariate of interest. We further derive a closed-form design effect formula to facilitate the application of the proposed method, and provide extensions to accommodate multiple covariates. Extensive simulations are carried out to validate the proposed formula in finite samples. We find that the empirical power agrees well with the prediction across a range of parameter constellations, when data are analyzed by a linear mixed effects model with a treatment-by-covariate interaction. Finally, we use data from the HF-ACTION study to illustrate the proposed sample size procedure for detecting heterogeneous treatment effects.
| S-EPMC7948251 | biostudies-literature