Cargando…

Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study

BACKGROUND: Analyses of multicenter studies often need to account for center clustering to ensure valid inference. For binary outcomes, it is particularly challenging to properly adjust for center when the number of centers or total sample size is small, or when there are few events per center. Our...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pedroza, Claudia, Truong, Van Thi Thanh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5667460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29096682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2248-1
_version_ 1783275490528722944
author Pedroza, Claudia
Truong, Van Thi Thanh
author_facet Pedroza, Claudia
Truong, Van Thi Thanh
author_sort Pedroza, Claudia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Analyses of multicenter studies often need to account for center clustering to ensure valid inference. For binary outcomes, it is particularly challenging to properly adjust for center when the number of centers or total sample size is small, or when there are few events per center. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of generalized estimating equation (GEE) log-binomial and Poisson models, generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming binomial and Poisson distributions, and a Bayesian binomial GLMM to account for center effect in these scenarios. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study with few centers (≤30) and 50 or fewer subjects per center, using both a randomized controlled trial and an observational study design to estimate relative risk. We compared the GEE and GLMM models with a log-binomial model without adjustment for clustering in terms of bias, root mean square error (RMSE), and coverage. For the Bayesian GLMM, we used informative neutral priors that are skeptical of large treatment effects that are almost never observed in studies of medical interventions. RESULTS: All frequentist methods exhibited little bias, and the RMSE was very similar across the models. The binomial GLMM had poor convergence rates, ranging from 27% to 85%, but performed well otherwise. The results show that both GEE models need to use small sample corrections for robust SEs to achieve proper coverage of 95% CIs. The Bayesian GLMM had similar convergence rates but resulted in slightly more biased estimates for the smallest sample sizes. However, it had the smallest RMSE and good coverage across all scenarios. These results were very similar for both study designs. CONCLUSIONS: For the analyses of multicenter studies with a binary outcome and few centers, we recommend adjustment for center with either a GEE log-binomial or Poisson model with appropriate small sample corrections or a Bayesian binomial GLMM with informative priors. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2248-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5667460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56674602017-11-08 Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study Pedroza, Claudia Truong, Van Thi Thanh Trials Research BACKGROUND: Analyses of multicenter studies often need to account for center clustering to ensure valid inference. For binary outcomes, it is particularly challenging to properly adjust for center when the number of centers or total sample size is small, or when there are few events per center. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of generalized estimating equation (GEE) log-binomial and Poisson models, generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming binomial and Poisson distributions, and a Bayesian binomial GLMM to account for center effect in these scenarios. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study with few centers (≤30) and 50 or fewer subjects per center, using both a randomized controlled trial and an observational study design to estimate relative risk. We compared the GEE and GLMM models with a log-binomial model without adjustment for clustering in terms of bias, root mean square error (RMSE), and coverage. For the Bayesian GLMM, we used informative neutral priors that are skeptical of large treatment effects that are almost never observed in studies of medical interventions. RESULTS: All frequentist methods exhibited little bias, and the RMSE was very similar across the models. The binomial GLMM had poor convergence rates, ranging from 27% to 85%, but performed well otherwise. The results show that both GEE models need to use small sample corrections for robust SEs to achieve proper coverage of 95% CIs. The Bayesian GLMM had similar convergence rates but resulted in slightly more biased estimates for the smallest sample sizes. However, it had the smallest RMSE and good coverage across all scenarios. These results were very similar for both study designs. CONCLUSIONS: For the analyses of multicenter studies with a binary outcome and few centers, we recommend adjustment for center with either a GEE log-binomial or Poisson model with appropriate small sample corrections or a Bayesian binomial GLMM with informative priors. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2248-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5667460/ /pubmed/29096682 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2248-1 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
Pedroza, Claudia
Truong, Van Thi Thanh
Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study
title Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study
title_full Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study
title_fullStr Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study
title_full_unstemmed Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study
title_short Estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? A simulation study
title_sort estimating relative risks in multicenter studies with a small number of centers — which methods to use? a simulation study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5667460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29096682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2248-1
work_keys_str_mv AT pedrozaclaudia estimatingrelativerisksinmulticenterstudieswithasmallnumberofcenterswhichmethodstouseasimulationstudy
AT truongvanthithanh estimatingrelativerisksinmulticenterstudieswithasmallnumberofcenterswhichmethodstouseasimulationstudy