Cargando…
Comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study
BACKGROUND: Due to identifiability problems, statistical inference about treatment-by-period interactions has not been discussed for stepped wedge designs in the literature thus far. Unidirectional switch designs (USDs) generalize the stepped wedge designs and allow for estimation and testing of tre...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9673415/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36396984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01765-9 |
_version_ | 1784832937024290816 |
---|---|
author | Zhan, Zhuozhao de Bock, Geertruida H. van den Heuvel, Edwin R. |
author_facet | Zhan, Zhuozhao de Bock, Geertruida H. van den Heuvel, Edwin R. |
author_sort | Zhan, Zhuozhao |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Due to identifiability problems, statistical inference about treatment-by-period interactions has not been discussed for stepped wedge designs in the literature thus far. Unidirectional switch designs (USDs) generalize the stepped wedge designs and allow for estimation and testing of treatment-by-period interaction in its many flexible design forms. METHODS: Under different forms of the USDs, we simulated binary data at both aggregated and individual levels and studied the performances of the generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) and the marginal model with generalized estimation equations (GEE) for estimating and testing treatment-by-period interactions. RESULTS: The parallel group design had the highest power for detecting the treatment-by-period interactions. While there was no substantial difference between aggregated-level and individual-level analysis, the GLMM had better point estimates than the marginal model with GEE. Furthermore, the optimal USD for estimating the average treatment effect was not efficient for treatment-by-period interaction and the marginal model with GEE required a substantial number of clusters to yield unbiased estimates of the interaction parameters when the correlation structure is autoregressive of order 1 (AR1). On the other hand, marginal model with GEE had better coverages than GLMM under the AR1 correlation structure. CONCLUSION: From the designs and methods evaluated, in general, parallel group design with a GLMM is, preferred for estimation and testing of treatment-by-period interaction in a clustered randomized controlled trial for a binary outcome. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01765-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9673415 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96734152022-11-19 Comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study Zhan, Zhuozhao de Bock, Geertruida H. van den Heuvel, Edwin R. BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Due to identifiability problems, statistical inference about treatment-by-period interactions has not been discussed for stepped wedge designs in the literature thus far. Unidirectional switch designs (USDs) generalize the stepped wedge designs and allow for estimation and testing of treatment-by-period interaction in its many flexible design forms. METHODS: Under different forms of the USDs, we simulated binary data at both aggregated and individual levels and studied the performances of the generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) and the marginal model with generalized estimation equations (GEE) for estimating and testing treatment-by-period interactions. RESULTS: The parallel group design had the highest power for detecting the treatment-by-period interactions. While there was no substantial difference between aggregated-level and individual-level analysis, the GLMM had better point estimates than the marginal model with GEE. Furthermore, the optimal USD for estimating the average treatment effect was not efficient for treatment-by-period interaction and the marginal model with GEE required a substantial number of clusters to yield unbiased estimates of the interaction parameters when the correlation structure is autoregressive of order 1 (AR1). On the other hand, marginal model with GEE had better coverages than GLMM under the AR1 correlation structure. CONCLUSION: From the designs and methods evaluated, in general, parallel group design with a GLMM is, preferred for estimation and testing of treatment-by-period interaction in a clustered randomized controlled trial for a binary outcome. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01765-9. BioMed Central 2022-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9673415/ /pubmed/36396984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01765-9 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 Zhan, Zhuozhao de Bock, Geertruida H. van den Heuvel, Edwin R. Comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study |
title | Comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study |
title_full | Comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study |
title_short | Comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study |
title_sort | comparison of analysis methods and design choices for treatment-by-period interaction in unidirectional switch designs: a simulation study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9673415/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36396984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01765-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhanzhuozhao comparisonofanalysismethodsanddesignchoicesfortreatmentbyperiodinteractioninunidirectionalswitchdesignsasimulationstudy AT debockgeertruidah comparisonofanalysismethodsanddesignchoicesfortreatmentbyperiodinteractioninunidirectionalswitchdesignsasimulationstudy AT vandenheuveledwinr comparisonofanalysismethodsanddesignchoicesfortreatmentbyperiodinteractioninunidirectionalswitchdesignsasimulationstudy |