Cargando…
Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method
BACKGROUND: Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are often designed with a small number of clusters, but it is not clear which analysis methods are optimal when the outcome is binary. This simulation study aimed to determine (i) whether cluster-level analysis (CL), generalised linear mixed models (GLMM)...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9375419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35962318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01699-2 |
_version_ | 1784767960402886656 |
---|---|
author | Thompson, Jennifer A. Leyrat, Clemence Fielding, Katherine L. Hayes, Richard J. |
author_facet | Thompson, Jennifer A. Leyrat, Clemence Fielding, Katherine L. Hayes, Richard J. |
author_sort | Thompson, Jennifer A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are often designed with a small number of clusters, but it is not clear which analysis methods are optimal when the outcome is binary. This simulation study aimed to determine (i) whether cluster-level analysis (CL), generalised linear mixed models (GLMM), and generalised estimating equations with sandwich variance (GEE) approaches maintain acceptable type-one error including the impact of non-normality of cluster effects and low prevalence, and if so (ii) which methods have the greatest power. We simulated CRTs with 8–30 clusters, altering the cluster-size, outcome prevalence, intracluster correlation coefficient, and cluster effect distribution. We analysed each dataset with weighted and unweighted CL; GLMM with adaptive quadrature and restricted pseudolikelihood; GEE with Kauermann-and-Carroll and Fay-and-Graubard sandwich variance using independent and exchangeable working correlation matrices. P-values were from a t-distribution with degrees of freedom (DoF) as clusters minus cluster-level parameters; GLMM pseudolikelihood also used Satterthwaite and Kenward-Roger DoF. RESULTS: Unweighted CL, GLMM pseudolikelihood, and Fay-and-Graubard GEE with independent or exchangeable working correlation matrix controlled type-one error in > 97% scenarios with clusters minus parameters DoF. Cluster-effect distribution and prevalence of outcome did not usually affect analysis method performance. GEE had the least power. With 20–30 clusters, GLMM had greater power than CL with varying cluster-size but similar power otherwise; with fewer clusters, GLMM had lower power with common cluster-size, similar power with medium variation, and greater power with large variation in cluster-size. CONCLUSION: We recommend that CRTs with ≤ 30 clusters and a binary outcome use an unweighted CL or restricted pseudolikelihood GLMM both with DoF clusters minus cluster-level parameters. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01699-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9375419 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93754192022-08-14 Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method Thompson, Jennifer A. Leyrat, Clemence Fielding, Katherine L. Hayes, Richard J. BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are often designed with a small number of clusters, but it is not clear which analysis methods are optimal when the outcome is binary. This simulation study aimed to determine (i) whether cluster-level analysis (CL), generalised linear mixed models (GLMM), and generalised estimating equations with sandwich variance (GEE) approaches maintain acceptable type-one error including the impact of non-normality of cluster effects and low prevalence, and if so (ii) which methods have the greatest power. We simulated CRTs with 8–30 clusters, altering the cluster-size, outcome prevalence, intracluster correlation coefficient, and cluster effect distribution. We analysed each dataset with weighted and unweighted CL; GLMM with adaptive quadrature and restricted pseudolikelihood; GEE with Kauermann-and-Carroll and Fay-and-Graubard sandwich variance using independent and exchangeable working correlation matrices. P-values were from a t-distribution with degrees of freedom (DoF) as clusters minus cluster-level parameters; GLMM pseudolikelihood also used Satterthwaite and Kenward-Roger DoF. RESULTS: Unweighted CL, GLMM pseudolikelihood, and Fay-and-Graubard GEE with independent or exchangeable working correlation matrix controlled type-one error in > 97% scenarios with clusters minus parameters DoF. Cluster-effect distribution and prevalence of outcome did not usually affect analysis method performance. GEE had the least power. With 20–30 clusters, GLMM had greater power than CL with varying cluster-size but similar power otherwise; with fewer clusters, GLMM had lower power with common cluster-size, similar power with medium variation, and greater power with large variation in cluster-size. CONCLUSION: We recommend that CRTs with ≤ 30 clusters and a binary outcome use an unweighted CL or restricted pseudolikelihood GLMM both with DoF clusters minus cluster-level parameters. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01699-2. BioMed Central 2022-08-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9375419/ /pubmed/35962318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01699-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Thompson, Jennifer A. Leyrat, Clemence Fielding, Katherine L. Hayes, Richard J. Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method |
title | Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method |
title_full | Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method |
title_fullStr | Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method |
title_full_unstemmed | Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method |
title_short | Cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method |
title_sort | cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome and a small number of clusters: comparison of individual and cluster level analysis method |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9375419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35962318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01699-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thompsonjennifera clusterrandomisedtrialswithabinaryoutcomeandasmallnumberofclusterscomparisonofindividualandclusterlevelanalysismethod AT leyratclemence clusterrandomisedtrialswithabinaryoutcomeandasmallnumberofclusterscomparisonofindividualandclusterlevelanalysismethod AT fieldingkatherinel clusterrandomisedtrialswithabinaryoutcomeandasmallnumberofclusterscomparisonofindividualandclusterlevelanalysismethod AT hayesrichardj clusterrandomisedtrialswithabinaryoutcomeandasmallnumberofclusterscomparisonofindividualandclusterlevelanalysismethod |