Dataset Information

Sample sizes for cluster-randomised trials with continuous outcomes: Accounting for uncertainty in a single intra-cluster correlation estimate.

ABSTRACT: Sample size calculations for cluster-randomised trials require inclusion of an inflation factor taking into account the intra-cluster correlation coefficient. Often, estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient are taken from pilot trials, which are known to have uncertainty about their estimation. Given that the value of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient has a considerable influence on the calculated sample size for a main trial, the uncertainty in the estimate can have a large impact on the ultimate sample size and consequently, the power of a main trial. As such, it is important to account for the uncertainty in the estimate of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient. While a commonly adopted approach is to utilise the upper confidence limit in the sample size calculation, this is a largely inefficient method which can result in overpowered main trials. In this paper, we present a method of estimating the sample size for a main cluster-randomised trial with a continuous outcome, using numerical methods to account for the uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation coefficient estimate. Despite limitations with this initial study, the findings and recommendations in this paper can help to improve sample size estimations for cluster randomised controlled trials by accounting for uncertainty in the estimate of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient. We recommend this approach be applied to all trials where there is uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation coefficient estimate, in conjunction with additional sources of information to guide the estimation of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient.

SUBMITTER: Lewis J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8649444 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/aimsTo evaluate how uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation impacts whether a parallel-group or stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial design is more efficient in terms of the required sample size, in the case of cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials and continuous outcome data.MethodsWe motivate our work by reviewing how the intra-cluster correlation and standard deviation were justified in 54 health technology assessment reports on cluster-randomized trials. To enable uncertainty at the design stage to be incorporated into the design specification, we then describe how sample size calculation can be performed for cluster- randomized trials in the 'hybrid' framework, which places priors on design parameters and controls the expected power in place of the conventional frequentist power. Comparison of the parallel-group and stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial designs is conducted by placing Beta and truncated Normal priors on the intra-cluster correlation, and a Gamma prior on the standard deviation.ResultsMany Health Technology Assessment reports did not adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guideline of indicating the uncertainty around the assumed intra-cluster correlation, while others did not justify the assumed intra-cluster correlation or standard deviation. Even for a prior intra-cluster correlation distribution with a small mode, moderate prior densities on high intra-cluster correlation values can lead to a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial being more efficient because of the degree to which a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial is more efficient for high intra-cluster correlations. With careful specification of the priors, the designs in the hybrid framework can become more robust to, for example, an unexpectedly large value of the outcome variance.ConclusionWhen there is difficulty obtaining a reliable value for the intra-cluster correlation to assume at the design stage, the proposed methodology offers an appealing approach to sample size calculation. Often, uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation will mean a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial is more efficient than a parallel-group cluster-randomized trial design.

Project description:Background: the impact of knee osteoarthritis (OA) poses a formidable challenge to older adults. Studies have reported that genetic factors, such as MMP1, are one of important risk factors for knee OA. Although the relationship between the genetic polymorphism of MMP1 rs1799750 and the risk of knee OA has been explored, conclusions have been nonunanimous and pending due to research sample sizes, one of determinants in studying genetic polymorphisms associated with disease. Objective: to establish a model to assess whether the genetic polymorphism of MMP1 rs1799750 is associated with knee OA based on an estimation of sample sizes. Methods: samples were collected from a case−control and meta-analysis study. In the case−control study, patients who underwent knee X-ray examinations based on the Kellgren−Lawrence Grading System (KL) as diagnostic criteria were recruited at the Health Examination Center of the Tri-Service General Hospital from 2015 to 2019. Gene sequencing was conducted using iPLEX Gold. Those with unsuccessful gene sequencing were excluded. Finally, there were 569 patients in the knee OA group (KL ≥ 2) and 534 participants in the control group (KL < 2). In the meta-analysis, we used the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane to search for studies on the relationship between MMP1 rs1799750 and knee OA. Next, we adopted the trial sequential analysis (TSA) method to assess whether sample sizes were sufficient or not to determine the risk of the genetic polymorphism of MMP1 rs1799750 on knee OA in Caucasians and Asians. Results: in Caucasians, the MMP1 rs1799750 was not significantly associated with knee OA with an odds ratios (OR) of 1.10 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.45−2.68). Some extra 8559 samples were needed to conclude this relationship in Caucasians by the TSA model. In Asians, neither our case−control study results (n = 1103) nor a combination of samples from the case−control and meta-analysis results showed an association between MMP1 rs1799750 and knee OA. The OR (95% CI) was 1.10 (0.81−1.49) in a combination of Asian samples. Some extra 5517 samples were needed to justify this relationship in Asians by the TSA model. Conclusions: this research shows that an extra 8559 and 5517 samples are needed in Caucasians and Asians, respectively, in order to justify the association between MMP1 rs1799750 and knee OA.

Dataset Information

Sample sizes for cluster-randomised trials with continuous outcomes: Accounting for uncertainty in a single intra-cluster correlation estimate.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets