Unequal cluster sizes for trials in English and Welsh general practice: implications for sample size calculations

被引:0
|
作者
Kerry, SM [1 ]
Bland, JM [1 ]
机构
[1] St George Hosp, Sch Med, Dept Gen Practice & Primary Care, London SW17 0RE, England
关键词
D O I
10.1002/1097-0258(20010215)20:3<377::AID-SIM799>3.0.CO;2-N
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Cluster randomized trials are often used in primary care settings. In the U.K., general practices are usually the unit of allocation. The effect of variability in practice list size on sample size calculations is demonstrated using the General Medical Services Statistics for England and Wales, 1997. Summary statistics and tables are given to help design such trials assuming that a fixed proportion of patients are to be recruited from each cluster. Three different weightings of the cluster means are compared: uniform, cluster size and minimum variance weights. Minimum variance weights are shown to be superior to uniform, particularly when clusters are small, and to cluster size weights, particularly when clusters are large. Where there are large numbers of participants per cluster and cluster size weights are used, the power actually falls as more patients are recruited to large clusters. When minimum variance weights are used the increase in the design effect due to variation in list size is small, regardless of the size of intracluster correlation coefficient or the number of participants per cluster, provided there is no loss of randomized units. When the expected number of participants per practice is low a greater loss in power comes from practices which fail to recruit patients. A method to estimate the likely effect and allow for it is presented. Copyright (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:377 / 390
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach
    Hemming, Karla
    Taljaard, Monica
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 69 : 137 - 146
  • [22] Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters
    Karla Hemming
    Alan J Girling
    Alice J Sitch
    Jennifer Marsh
    Richard J Lilford
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11
  • [23] Sample size calculations for clinical trials
    Chow, Shein-Chung
    WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS, 2011, 3 (05): : 414 - 427
  • [24] QUICK CALCULATIONS OF CRITICAL DIFFERENCES FOR SCHEFFES TEST FOR UNEQUAL SAMPLE SIZES
    WILLIAMS, JD
    AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 1970, 24 (02): : 38 - &
  • [25] Unequal cluster sizes in stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials: a systematic review
    Kristunas, Caroline
    Morris, Tom
    Gray, Laura
    BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (11):
  • [26] ON UNEQUAL CLUSTER SAMPLING FOR FIXED SAMPLE-SIZE
    MEHROTRA, PC
    SRIVASTAVA, AK
    TYAGI, KK
    STATISTICIAN, 1987, 36 (04): : 385 - 391
  • [27] Ethical implications of excessive cluster sizes in cluster randomised trials
    Hemming, Karla
    Taljaard, Monica
    Forbes, Gordon
    Eldridge, Sandra M.
    Weijer, Charles
    BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2018, 27 (08) : 664 - 670
  • [28] Relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in cluster randomized and multicentre trials
    van Breukelen, Gerard J. P.
    Candel, Math J. J. M.
    Berger, Martijn P. F.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2007, 26 (13) : 2589 - 2603
  • [29] Unequal center sizes, sample size, and power in multicenter clinical trials (vol 38, pg 387, 2004)
    不详
    DRUG INFORMATION JOURNAL, 2005, 39 (01): : 62 - 62
  • [30] Erratum to: Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters
    Karla Hemming
    Alan J Girling
    Alice J Sitch
    Jennifer Marsh
    Richard J Lilford
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17