Cargando…

Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study

BACKGROUND: Stepped wedge cluster randomised trials frequently involve a relatively small number of clusters. The most common frameworks used to analyse data from these types of trials are generalised estimating equations and generalised linear mixed models. A topic of much research into these metho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barker, Daniel, D’Este, Catherine, Campbell, Michael J., McElduff, Patrick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345156/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28279222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1862-2
_version_ 1782513661951082496
author Barker, Daniel
D’Este, Catherine
Campbell, Michael J.
McElduff, Patrick
author_facet Barker, Daniel
D’Este, Catherine
Campbell, Michael J.
McElduff, Patrick
author_sort Barker, Daniel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Stepped wedge cluster randomised trials frequently involve a relatively small number of clusters. The most common frameworks used to analyse data from these types of trials are generalised estimating equations and generalised linear mixed models. A topic of much research into these methods has been their application to cluster randomised trial data and, in particular, the number of clusters required to make reasonable inferences about the intervention effect. However, for stepped wedge trials, which have been claimed by many researchers to have a statistical power advantage over the parallel cluster randomised trial, the minimum number of clusters required has not been investigated. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study where we considered the most commonly used methods suggested in the literature to analyse cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trial data. We compared the per cent bias, the type I error rate and power of these methods in a stepped wedge trial setting with a binary outcome, where there are few clusters available and when the appropriate adjustment for a time trend is made, which by design may be confounding the intervention effect. RESULTS: We found that the generalised linear mixed modelling approach is the most consistent when few clusters are available. We also found that none of the common analysis methods for stepped wedge trials were both unbiased and maintained a 5% type I error rate when there were only three clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Of the commonly used analysis approaches, we recommend the generalised linear mixed model for small stepped wedge trials with binary outcomes. We also suggest that in a stepped wedge design with three steps, at least two clusters be randomised at each step, to ensure that the intervention effect estimator maintains the nominal 5% significance level and is also reasonably unbiased. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1862-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5345156
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53451562017-03-14 Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study Barker, Daniel D’Este, Catherine Campbell, Michael J. McElduff, Patrick Trials Research BACKGROUND: Stepped wedge cluster randomised trials frequently involve a relatively small number of clusters. The most common frameworks used to analyse data from these types of trials are generalised estimating equations and generalised linear mixed models. A topic of much research into these methods has been their application to cluster randomised trial data and, in particular, the number of clusters required to make reasonable inferences about the intervention effect. However, for stepped wedge trials, which have been claimed by many researchers to have a statistical power advantage over the parallel cluster randomised trial, the minimum number of clusters required has not been investigated. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study where we considered the most commonly used methods suggested in the literature to analyse cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trial data. We compared the per cent bias, the type I error rate and power of these methods in a stepped wedge trial setting with a binary outcome, where there are few clusters available and when the appropriate adjustment for a time trend is made, which by design may be confounding the intervention effect. RESULTS: We found that the generalised linear mixed modelling approach is the most consistent when few clusters are available. We also found that none of the common analysis methods for stepped wedge trials were both unbiased and maintained a 5% type I error rate when there were only three clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Of the commonly used analysis approaches, we recommend the generalised linear mixed model for small stepped wedge trials with binary outcomes. We also suggest that in a stepped wedge design with three steps, at least two clusters be randomised at each step, to ensure that the intervention effect estimator maintains the nominal 5% significance level and is also reasonably unbiased. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1862-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5345156/ /pubmed/28279222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1862-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Barker, Daniel
D’Este, Catherine
Campbell, Michael J.
McElduff, Patrick
Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study
title Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study
title_full Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study
title_fullStr Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study
title_full_unstemmed Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study
title_short Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study
title_sort minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: a simulation study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345156/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28279222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1862-2
work_keys_str_mv AT barkerdaniel minimumnumberofclustersandcomparisonofanalysismethodsforcrosssectionalsteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrialswithbinaryoutcomesasimulationstudy
AT destecatherine minimumnumberofclustersandcomparisonofanalysismethodsforcrosssectionalsteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrialswithbinaryoutcomesasimulationstudy
AT campbellmichaelj minimumnumberofclustersandcomparisonofanalysismethodsforcrosssectionalsteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrialswithbinaryoutcomesasimulationstudy
AT mcelduffpatrick minimumnumberofclustersandcomparisonofanalysismethodsforcrosssectionalsteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrialswithbinaryoutcomesasimulationstudy