Analysis of cluster randomized trials with repeated cross-sectional binary measurements

被引:0
|
作者
Ukoumunne, OC
Thompson, SG
机构
[1] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Dept Med Stat & Evaluat, London W12 0NN, England
[2] MRC, Biostat Unit, Inst Publ Hlth, Cambridge CB2 2SR, England
关键词
D O I
10.1002/1097-0258(20010215)20:3<417::AID-SIM802>3.0.CO;2-G
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Analytical techniques appropriate for cluster randomized trials that utilize a repeated cross-sectional design have not been extensively evaluated. This paper compares methods that can be used to evaluate the impact of an intervention on dichotomous outcomes. The methods are applied to data from a study on the implementation of Cochrane review evidence, in which 25 hospital obstetric units were randomized. Assessments were made for 30 pregnancies in each obstetric unit at baseline, and for 30 separate pregnancies at follow-up. The principal issues addressed are how best to take clustering into account and to allow for baseline imbalance. We compare cluster level analyses, the clustered Woolf method, marginal models based on generalized estimating equations, multilevel models, and methods based on random effects meta-analysis. Analyses which ignored the baseline assessments showed no effect of the intervention. There was substantial baseline imbalance, however, so that analyses taking into account the baseline were necessary. Yet, while analyses of change from baseline showed evidence of an effect of intervention, adjusting for baseline using analysis of covariance did not. Analysis of covariance required the use of cluster level rather than individual level responses, since different pregnancies were evaluated at baseline and follow-up. Also, when analysing change from baseline, we show it is important to allow for variation in the effect of secular trend between clusters in a multilevel model, or use robust variance estimates in a marginal model, for otherwise confidence intervals for the effect of intervention will be too narrow. We conclude however that analyses of change from baseline can be misleading since they are affected too much by baseline results, and that analysis of covariance approaches are preferable. To prevent difficulties in interpreting the results from repeated cross-sectional cluster trial designs, one should either attempt to achieve baseline balance by careful stratification of the clusters prior to randomization, or have sufficiently large samples for precise estimation of the effects of imbalance. Copyright (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:417 / 433
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Baseline adjustments for binary data in repeated cross-sectional cluster randomized trials
    Nixon, RM
    Thompson, SG
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2003, 22 (17) : 2673 - 2692
  • [2] A Comparison of the Statistical Power of Different Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Cluster Randomization Trials with Binary Outcomes
    Austin, Peter C.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOSTATISTICS, 2010, 6 (01):
  • [3] Analysis of cluster randomised stepped wedge trials with repeated cross-sectional samples
    Hemming, Karla
    Taljaard, Monica
    Forbes, Andrew
    TRIALS, 2017, 18
  • [4] Analysis of cluster randomised stepped wedge trials with repeated cross-sectional samples
    Karla Hemming
    Monica Taljaard
    Andrew Forbes
    Trials, 18
  • [5] A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Spin in Randomized Controlled Trials
    Woodbridge, Alexandra
    Abraham, Ann
    Ahn, Rosa
    Saba, Susan
    Korenstein, Deborah
    Madden, Erin
    Keyhani, Salomeh
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2018, 33 (03) : 247 - 248
  • [6] A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Spin in Randomized Controlled Trials
    Alexandra Woodbridge
    Ann Abraham
    Rosa Ahn
    Susan Saba
    Deborah Korenstein
    Erin Madden
    Salomeh Keyhani
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2018, 33 : 247 - 248
  • [7] Power calculation for cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomized trials with variable cluster sizes
    Harrison, Linda J.
    Chen, Tom
    Wang, Rui
    BIOMETRICS, 2020, 76 (03) : 951 - 962
  • [8] Research Waste in Randomized Clinical Trials: a Cross-Sectional Analysis
    Alexander R Zheutlin
    Joshua Niforatos
    Eric Stulberg
    Jeremy Sussman
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2020, 35 : 3105 - 3107
  • [9] Research Waste in Randomized Clinical Trials: a Cross-Sectional Analysis
    Zheutlin, Alexander R.
    Niforatos, Joshua
    Stulberg, Eric
    Sussman, Jeremy
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2020, 35 (10) : 3105 - 3107
  • [10] Spin in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dentistry A cross-sectional analysis
    Roszhart, Jordan, I
    Kumar, Satish S.
    Allareddy, Veerasathpurush
    Childs, Christopher A.
    Elangovan, Satheesh
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2020, 151 (01): : 26 - +