Dataset Information

Cluster randomised trials with different numbers of measurements at baseline and endline: Sample size and optimal allocation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND/AIMS:Published methods for sample size calculation for cluster randomised trials with baseline data are inflexible and primarily assume an equal amount of data collected at baseline and endline, that is, before and after the intervention has been implemented in some clusters. We extend these methods to any amount of baseline and endline data. We explain how to explore sample size for a trial if some baseline data from the trial clusters have already been collected as part of a separate study. Where such data aren't available, we show how to choose the proportion of data collection devoted to the baseline within the trial, when a particular cluster size or range of cluster sizes is proposed. METHODS:We provide a design effect given the cluster size and correlation parameters, assuming different participants are assessed at baseline and endline in the same clusters. We show how to produce plots to identify the impact of varying the amount of baseline data accounting for the inevitable uncertainty in the cluster autocorrelation. We illustrate the methodology using an example trial. RESULTS:Baseline data provide more power, or allow a greater reduction in trial size, with greater values of the cluster size, intracluster correlation and cluster autocorrelation. CONCLUSION:Investigators should think carefully before collecting baseline data in a cluster randomised trial if this is at the expense of endline data. In some scenarios, this will increase the sample size required to achieve given power and precision.

SUBMITTER: Copas AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7334046 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cluster randomised trials with different numbers of measurements at baseline and endline: Sample size and optimal allocation.

Copas Andrew J AJ Hooper Richard R

Clinical trials (London, England) 20191003 1

<h4>Background/aims</h4>Published methods for sample size calculation for cluster randomised trials with baseline data are inflexible and primarily assume an equal amount of data collected at baseline and endline, that is, before and after the intervention has been implemented in some clusters. We extend these methods to any amount of baseline and endline data. We explain how to explore sample size for a trial if some baseline data from the trial clusters have already been collected as part of a ...[more]

PMID: 31580144

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Dataset Information

Cluster randomised trials with different numbers of measurements at baseline and endline: Sample size and optimal allocation.

Publications

Cluster randomised trials with different numbers of measurements at baseline and endline: Sample size and optimal allocation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets