Dataset Information

Interim data monitoring in cluster randomised trials: Practical issues and a case study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is an abundance of guidance for the interim monitoring of individually randomised trials. While methodological literature exists on how to extend these methods to cluster randomised trials, there is little guidance on practical implementation. Cluster trials have many features which make their monitoring needs different. We outline the methodological and practical challenges of interim monitoring of cluster trials; and apply these considerations to a case study.

Case study

The E-MOTIVE study is an 80-cluster randomised trial of a bundle of interventions to treat postpartum haemorrhage. The proposed data monitoring plan includes (1) monitor sample size assumptions, (2) monitor for evidence of selection bias, and (3) an interim assessment of the primary outcome, as well as monitoring data completeness. The timing of the sample size monitoring is chosen with both consideration of statistical precision and to allow time to recruit more clusters. Monitoring for selection bias involves comparing individual-level characteristics and numbers recruited between study arms to identify any post-randomisation participant identification bias. An interim analysis of outcomes presented with 99.9% confidence intervals using the Haybittle-Peto approach should mitigate any concern regarding the inflation of type-I error. The pragmatic nature of the trial means monitoring for adherence is not relevant, as it is built into a process evaluation.

Conclusions

The interim analyses of cluster trials have a number of important differences to monitoring individually randomised trials. In cluster trials, there will often be a greater need to monitor nuisance parameters, yet there will often be considerable uncertainty in their estimation. This means the utility of sample size re-estimation can be questionable particularly when there are practical or funding difficulties associated with making any changes to planned sample sizes. Perhaps most importantly interim monitoring has the potential to identify selection bias, particularly in trials with post-randomisation identification or recruitment. Finally, the pragmatic nature of cluster trials might mean that the utility of methods to allow for interim monitoring of outcomes based on statistical testing, or monitoring for adherence to study interventions, are less relevant. Our intention is to facilitate the planning of future cluster randomised trials and to promote discussion and debate to improve monitoring of these studies.

SUBMITTER: Hemming K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479148 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundUsing four case studies, we aim to provide practical guidance and recommendations for the analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials.MethodsFour modelling approaches (Generalized Linear Mixed Models with parameters estimated by maximum likelihood/restricted maximum likelihood; Generalized Linear Models with parameters estimated by Generalized Estimating Equations (1st order or second order) and Quadratic Inference Function, for analysing correlated individual participant level outcomes in cluster randomised controlled trials were identified after we reviewed the literature. We systematically searched the online bibliography databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (via OVID), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and SCOPUS. We identified the above-mentioned four statistical analytical approaches and applied them to four case studies of cluster randomised controlled trials with the number of clusters ranging from 10 to 100, and individual participants ranging from 748 to 9,207. Results were obtained for both continuous and binary outcomes using R and SAS statistical packages.ResultsThe intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates for the case studies were less than 0.05 and are consistent with the observed ICC values commonly reported in primary care and community-based cluster randomised controlled trials. In most cases, the four methods produced similar results. However, in a few analyses, quadratic inference function produced different results compared to the generalized linear mixed model, first-order generalized estimating equations, and second-order generalized estimating equations, especially in trials with small to moderate numbers of clusters.ConclusionThis paper demonstrates the analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials with four modelling approaches. The results obtained were similar in most cases, however, for trials with few clusters we do recommend that the quadratic inference function should be used with caution, and where possible a small sample correction should be used. The generalisability of our results is limited to studies with similar features to our case studies, for example, studies with a similar-sized ICC. It is important to conduct simulation studies to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the four modelling approaches.

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:BackgroundThere are many methodological challenges in the conduct and analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials, but one that has received little attention is that of post-randomisation changes to cluster composition. To illustrate this, we focus on the issue of cluster merging, considering the impact on the design, analysis and interpretation of trial outcomes.MethodsWe explored the effects of merging clusters on study power using standard methods of power calculation. We assessed the potential impacts on study findings of both homogeneous cluster merges (involving clusters randomised to the same arm of a trial) and heterogeneous merges (involving clusters randomised to different arms of a trial) by simulation. To determine the impact on bias and precision of treatment effect estimates, we applied standard methods of analysis to different populations under analysis.ResultsCluster merging produced a systematic reduction in study power. This effect depended on the number of merges and was most pronounced when variability in cluster size was at its greatest. Simulations demonstrate that the impact on analysis was minimal when cluster merges were homogeneous, with impact on study power being balanced by a change in observed intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC). We found a decrease in study power when cluster merges were heterogeneous, and the estimate of treatment effect was attenuated.ConclusionsExamples of cluster merges found in previously published reports of cluster randomised trials were typically homogeneous rather than heterogeneous. Simulations demonstrated that trial findings in such cases would be unbiased. However, simulations also showed that any heterogeneous cluster merges would introduce bias that would be hard to quantify, as well as having negative impacts on the precision of estimates obtained. Further methodological development is warranted to better determine how to analyse such trials appropriately. Interim recommendations include avoidance of cluster merges where possible, discontinuation of clusters following heterogeneous merges, allowance for potential loss of clusters and additional variability in cluster size in the original sample size calculation, and use of appropriate ICC estimates that reflect cluster size.