Sensitivity of methods for analyzing continuous outcome from stratified cluster randomized trials - an empirical comparison study

Sayem Borhan, Rizwana Mallick, Mershen Pillay, Harsha Kathard, Lehana Thabane, Sayem Borhan, Rizwana Mallick, Mershen Pillay, Harsha Kathard, Lehana Thabane

Abstract

The assessment of the sensitivity of statistical methods has received little attention in cluster randomized trials (CRTs), especially for stratified CRT when the outcome of interest is continuous. We empirically examined the sensitivity of five methods for analyzing the continuous outcome from a stratified CRT - aimed to investigate the efficacy of the Classroom Communication Resource (CCR) compared to usual care to improve the peer attitude towards children who stutter among grade 7 students. Schools - the clusters, were divided into quintile based on their socio-political resources, and then stratified by quintile. The schools were then randomized to CCR and usual care groups in each stratum. The primary outcome was Stuttering Resource Outcomes Measure. Five methods, including the primary method, were used in this study to examine the effect of CCR. The individual-level methods were: (i) linear regression; (ii) mixed-effects method; (iii) GEE with exchangeable correlation structure (primary method of analysis). And the cluster-level methods were: (iv) cluster-level linear regression; and (v) meta-regression. These methods were also compared with or without adjustment for stratification. Ten schools were stratified by quintile, and then randomized to CCR (223 students) and usual care (231 students) groups. The direction of the estimated differences was same for all the methods except meta-regression. The widths of the 95% confidence intervals were narrower when adjusted for stratification. The overall conclusion from all the methods was similar but slightly differed in terms of effect estimate and widths of confidence intervals.

Trialregistration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03111524. Registered on 9 March 2017.

Keywords: Cluster randomized trial; Continuous; Sensitivity analysis; Stratification.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow chart of the Mallick et al. study.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Results of ITT analyses from different methods with and without adjustment for stratification.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Results of per-protocol analyses from different methods with and without adjustment for stratification.

References

    1. Donner A., Klar N. Arnold London; 2000. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research.
    1. Bland J. Cluster randomised trials in the medical literature: two bibliometric surveys. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2004;4:21–27.
    1. Kroeger A., Avila E.V., Morison L. Insecticide impregnated curtains to control domestic transmission of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Venezuela: cluster randomized trial. Br. Med. J. 2002;325(7368):810–813.
    1. Jordhoy M., Fayers P., Saltnes T., Ahlner-Elmqvist M., Jannert M., Kaasa S. A palliative-care intervention and death at home: a cluster randomized trial. Lancet. 2000;356(9233):888–893.
    1. Mallick R., Kathard H., Borhan A.S.M., Pillay M., Thabane L. A Cluster randomised trial of a classroom communication resource program to change peer attitudes towards children who stutter among grade 7 students. Trials. 2018;19:664.
    1. Klar N., Donner A. The merits of matching in community intervention trials: a cautionary tale. Stat. Med. 1997;16:1753–1764.
    1. Murray D., Varnell S., Blitstein J. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments. Am. J. Public Health. 2004;94:423–432.
    1. Hedeker D., Gibbons R., Flay B. Random-effects regression models for clustered data with an example from smoking prevention research. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1994;62:757–765.
    1. Zeger L., Liang K.-Y., Albert P. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:1049–1060.
    1. Whitehead A. first ed. John Wiley and Sons; Chichester: 2002. Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials.
    1. Gould A. Multi-centre trial analysis revisited. Stat. Med. 1998;17(15–16):1779–1797. discussion 1799-800.
    1. Agresti A., Hartzel J. Strategies for comparing treatments on a binary response with multi-centre data. Stat. Med. 2000;19(8):1115–1139.
    1. Fleiss J. Analysis of data from multiclinic trials. Contr. Clin. Trials. 1986;7(4):267–275.
    1. Thabane A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2013;13(1):92. 2013.
    1. Mallick R., Kathard H., Thabane L., Pillay M. The Classroom Communication Resource (CCR) intervention to change peer's attitudes towards children who stutter (CWS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19:43.
    1. Campbell M., Elbourne D., Altman D., CONSORT group CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2004;328(7441):702–708.
    1. R Core Team . R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. URL.
    1. Brown H., Kempton R. The application of REML in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 1994;13(16):1601–1617.
    1. McLean R., Sanders W. Proceedings of the Statistical Computing Section of the American Statistical Association. New Orleans. Louisiana; 1988. Approximating the degrees of freedom for SE's in mixed linear models.
    1. Twisk J. Cambridge University Press; 2003. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology: a Practical Guide.
    1. Liang K.-Y., Zeger L. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13–22.
    1. Walters S., Morrell C., Slade P. Analysing data from a cluster randomized trial (cCRT) in primary care: a case study. J. Appl. Stat. 2011;38(10):2253–2269.
    1. Higgins J.P.T., Green S., editors. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] Available from: .
    1. Ukoumunne O., Carlin J., Gulliford M. A simulation study of odds ratio estimation for binary outcomes from cluster randomized trials. Stat. Med. 2007;26(18):3415–3428.
    1. Ma Comparison of Bayesian and classical methods in the analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome: the Community Hypertension Assessment Trial (CHAT) BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2009;9:37.
    1. Kahan B., Morris T. Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis. BMJ. 2012;345
    1. Chu R., Thabane L., Ma J., Holbrook A., Pullenayegum E., Devereaux P. Comparing methods to estimate treatment effects on a continuous outcome in multicentre randomized controlled trials: a simulation study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2011;11:21.
    1. Hayes R., Moulton L. Chapman and Hall/CRC; Boca Raton, FL: 2009. Cluster Randomised Trials.
    1. Petrie A., Sabin C. second ed. Blackwell; Oxford: 2005. Medical Statistics at a Glance.
    1. Campbell M., Donner A., Klar N. Developments in cluster randomized trials and statistics in medicine. Stat. Med. 2007;26(1):2–19.
    1. FitzGerald P., Knuiman M. Use of conditional and marginal odds-ratios for analysing familial aggregation of binary data. Genet. Epidemiol. 2000;18(3):193–202.
    1. Austin P. A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes. Stat. Med. 2007;26(19):3550–3565.
    1. Prentice R. Correlated binary regression with covariates specific to each binary observation. Biometrics. 1988;44(4):1033–1048.
    1. Mancl L., DeRouen T. A covariance estimator for GEE with improved small-sample properties. Biometrics. 2001;57(1):126–134.
    1. Leyrat Cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters: which analyses should be used? Int. J. Epidemiol. 2018;47(1):321–331.
    1. Ivers N., Taljaard M., Dixon S. Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomized trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000–8. BMJ. 2011;343:d5886.
    1. Kenward M., Roger J. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997;53:983–997.
    1. Fay M., Graubard B. Small-sample adjustments for Wald-type tests using sandwich estimators. Biometrics. 2001;57:1198–1206.
    1. Mancl L., DeRouen T. A covariance estimator for GEE with improved small-sample properties. Biometrics. 2001;57:126–134.
    1. Li P., Redden D. Comparing denominator degrees of freedom approximations for the generalized linear mixed model in analysing binary outcome in small sample cluster-randomized trials. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2015;15:38.
    1. Li P., Redden D. Small sample performance of bias-corrected sandwich estimators for cluster-randomized trials with binary outcomes. Stat. Med. 2015;34:281–296.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться