Power analysis for cluster randomized trials with continuous coprimary endpoints

Pragmatic trials evaluating health care interventions often adopt cluster randomization due to scientific or logistical considerations. Systematic reviews have shown that coprimary endpoints are not uncommon in pragmatic trials but are seldom recognized in sample size or power calculations. While methods for power analysis based on K ($K\ge 2$) binary coprimary endpoints are available for cluster randomized trials (CRTs), to our knowledge, methods for continuous coprimary endpoints are not yet available. Assuming a multivariate linear mixed model (MLMM) that accounts for multiple types of intraclass correlation coefficients among the observations in each cluster, we derive the closed-form joint distribution of K treatment effect estimators to facilitate sample size and power determination with different types of null hypotheses under equal cluster sizes. We characterize the relationship between the power of each test and different types of correlation parameters. We further relax the equal cluster size assumption and approximate the joint distribution of the K treatment effect estimators through the mean and coefficient of variation of cluster sizes. Our simulation studies with a finite number of clusters indicate that the predicted power by our method agrees well with the empirical power, when the parameters in the MLMM are estimated via the expectation-maximization algorithm. An application to a real CRT is presented to illustrate the proposed method.     

Sample Size Estimation in Cluster Randomized Studies with Varying Cluster Size

Cluster randomized studies are common in community trials. The standard method for estimating sample size for cluster randomized studies assumes a common cluster size. However often in cluster randomized studies, size of the clusters vary. In this paper, we derive sample size estimation for continuous outcomes for cluster randomized studies while accounting for the variability due to cluster size. It is shown that the proposed formula for estimating total cluster size can be obtained by adding a correction term to the traditional formula which uses the average cluster size. Application of these results to the design of a health promotion educational intervention study is discussed.     

Relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials using generalized estimating equation models

There is growing interest in conducting cluster randomized trials (CRTs). For simplicity in sample size calculation, the cluster sizes are assumed to be identical across all clusters. However, equal cluster sizes are not guaranteed in practice. Therefore, the relative efficiency (RE) of unequal versus equal cluster sizes has been investigated when testing the treatment effect. One of the most important approaches to analyze a set of correlated data is the generalized estimating equation (GEE) proposed by Liang and Zeger, in which the “working correlation structure” is introduced and the association pattern depends on a vector of association parameters denoted by ρ. In this paper, we utilize GEE models to test the treatment effect in a two‐group comparison for continuous, binary, or count data in CRTs. The variances of the estimator of the treatment effect are derived for the different types of outcome. RE is defined as the ratio of variance of the estimator of the treatment effect for equal to unequal cluster sizes. We discuss a commonly used structure in CRTs—exchangeable, and derive the simpler formula of RE with continuous, binary, and count outcomes. Finally, REs are investigated for several scenarios of cluster size distributions through simulation studies. We propose an adjusted sample size due to efficiency loss. Additionally, we also propose an optimal sample size estimation based on the GEE models under a fixed budget for known and unknown association parameter (ρ) in the working correlation structure within the cluster.     

Sample Size Considerations for GEE Analyses of Three‐Level Cluster Randomized Trials

Summary Cluster randomized trials in health care may involve three instead of two levels, for instance, in trials where different interventions to improve quality of care are compared. In such trials, the intervention is implemented in health care units (“clusters”) and aims at changing the behavior of health care professionals working in this unit (“subjects”), while the effects are measured at the patient level (“evaluations”). Within the generalized estimating equations approach, we derive a sample size formula that accounts for two levels of clustering: that of subjects within clusters and that of evaluations within subjects. The formula reveals that sample size is inflated, relative to a design with completely independent evaluations, by a multiplicative term that can be expressed as a product of two variance inflation factors, one that quantifies the impact of within‐subject correlation of evaluations on the variance of subject‐level means and the other that quantifies the impact of the correlation between subject‐level means on the variance of the cluster means. Power levels as predicted by the sample size formula agreed well with the simulated power for more than 10 clusters in total, when data were analyzed using bias‐corrected estimating equations for the correlation parameters in combination with the model‐based covariance estimator or the sandwich estimator with a finite sample correction.     

Imputation strategies for missing continuous outcomes in cluster randomized trials

In cluster randomized trials, intact social units such as schools, worksites or medical practices - rather than individuals themselves - are randomly allocated to intervention and control conditions, while the outcomes of interest are then observed on individuals within each cluster. Such trials are becoming increasingly common in the fields of health promotion and health services research. Attrition is a common occurrence in randomized trials, and a standard approach for dealing with the resulting missing values is imputation. We consider imputation strategies for missing continuous outcomes, focusing on trials with a completely randomized design in which fixed cohorts from each cluster are enrolled prior to random assignment. We compare five different imputation strategies with respect to Type I and Type II error rates of the adjusted two-sample t -test for the intervention effect. Cluster mean imputation is compared with multiple imputation, using either within-cluster data or data pooled across clusters in each intervention group. In the case of pooling across clusters, we distinguish between standard multiple imputation procedures which do not account for intracluster correlation and a specialized procedure which does account for intracluster correlation but is not yet available in standard statistical software packages. A simulation study is used to evaluate the influence of cluster size, number of clusters, degree of intracluster correlation, and variability among cluster follow-up rates. We show that cluster mean imputation yields valid inferences and given its simplicity, may be an attractive option in some large community intervention trials which are subject to individual-level attrition only; however, it may yield less powerful inferences than alternative procedures which pool across clusters especially when the cluster sizes are small and cluster follow-up rates are highly variable. When pooling across clusters, the imputation procedure should generally take intracluster correlation into account to obtain valid inferences; however, as long as the intracluster correlation coefficient is small, we show that standard multiple imputation procedures may yield acceptable type I error rates; moreover, these procedures may yield more powerful inferences than a specialized procedure, especially when the number of available clusters is small. Within-cluster multiple imputation is shown to be the least powerful among the procedures considered.     

Sample size considerations for stepped wedge designs with subclusters

The stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) is an increasingly popular design for evaluating health service delivery or policy interventions. An essential consideration of this design is the need to account for both within-period and between-period correlations in sample size calculations. Especially when embedded in health care delivery systems, many SW-CRTs may have subclusters nested in clusters, within which outcomes are collected longitudinally. However, existing sample size methods that account for between-period correlations have not allowed for multiple levels of clustering. We present computationally efficient sample size procedures that properly differentiate within-period and between-period intracluster correlation coefficients in SW-CRTs in the presence of subclusters. We introduce an extended block exchangeable correlation matrix to characterize the complex dependencies of outcomes within clusters. For Gaussian outcomes, we derive a closed-form sample size expression that depends on the correlation structure only through two eigenvalues of the extended block exchangeable correlation structure. For non-Gaussian outcomes, we present a generic sample size algorithm based on linearization and elucidate simplifications under canonical link functions. For example, we show that the approximate sample size formula under a logistic linear mixed model depends on three eigenvalues of the extended block exchangeable correlation matrix. We provide an extension to accommodate unequal cluster sizes and validate the proposed methods via simulations. Finally, we illustrate our methods in two real SW-CRTs with subclusters.     

Statistical power and sample size requirements for three level hierarchical cluster randomized trials

SUMMARY: Cluster randomized clinical trials (cluster-RCT), where the community entities serve as clusters, often yield data with three hierarchy levels. For example, interventions are randomly assigned to the clusters (level three unit). Health care professionals (level two unit) within the same cluster are trained with the randomly assigned intervention to provide care to subjects (level one unit). In this study, we derived a closed form power function and formulae for sample size determination required to detect an intervention effect on outcomes at the subject's level. In doing so, we used a test statistic based on maximum likelihood estimates from a mixed-effects linear regression model for three level data. A simulation study follows and verifies that theoretical power estimates based on the derived formulae are nearly identical to empirical estimates based on simulated data. Recommendations at the design stage of a cluster-RCT are discussed.     

The Effect of Cluster Size Variability on Statistical Power in Cluster-Randomized Trials

The frequency of cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) in peer-reviewed literature has increased exponentially over the past two decades. CRTs are a valuable tool for studying interventions that cannot be effectively implemented or randomized at the individual level. However, some aspects of the design and analysis of data from CRTs are more complex than those for individually randomized controlled trials. One of the key components to designing a successful CRT is calculating the proper sample size (i.e. number of clusters) needed to attain an acceptable level of statistical power. In order to do this, a researcher must make assumptions about the value of several variables, including a fixed mean cluster size. In practice, cluster size can often vary dramatically. Few studies account for the effect of cluster size variation when assessing the statistical power for a given trial. We conducted a simulation study to investigate how the statistical power of CRTs changes with variable cluster sizes. In general, we observed that increases in cluster size variability lead to a decrease in power.     

Improving sandwich variance estimation for marginal Cox analysis of cluster randomized trials

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) frequently recruit a small number of clusters, therefore necessitating the application of small-sample corrections for valid inference. A recent systematic review indicated that CRTs reporting right-censored, time-to-event outcomes are not uncommon and that the marginal Cox proportional hazards model is one of the common approaches used for primary analysis. While small-sample corrections have been studied under marginal models with continuous, binary, and count outcomes, no prior research has been devoted to the development and evaluation of bias-corrected sandwich variance estimators when clustered time-to-event outcomes are analyzed by the marginal Cox model. To improve current practice, we propose nine bias-corrected sandwich variance estimators for the analysis of CRTs using the marginal Cox model and report on a simulation study to evaluate their small-sample properties. Our results indicate that the optimal choice of bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator for CRTs with survival outcomes can depend on the variability of cluster sizes and can also slightly differ whether it is evaluated according to relative bias or type I error rate. Finally, we illustrate the new variance estimators in a real-world CRT where the conclusion about intervention effectiveness differs depending on the use of small-sample bias corrections. The proposed sandwich variance estimators are implemented in an R package CoxBcv .     

Participant informed consent in cluster randomized trials: review

Background

The Nuremberg code defines the general ethical framework of medical research with participant consent as its cornerstone. In cluster randomized trials (CRT), obtaining participant informed consent raises logistic and methodologic concerns. First, with randomization of large clusters such as geographical areas, obtaining individual informed consent may be impossible. Second, participants in randomized clusters cannot avoid certain interventions, which implies that participant informed consent refers only to data collection, not administration of an intervention. Third, complete participant information may be a source of selection bias, which then raises methodological concerns. We assessed whether participant informed consent was required in such trials, which type of consent was required, and whether the trial was at risk of selection bias because of the very nature of participant information.

Methods and Findings

We systematically reviewed all reports of CRT published in MEDLINE in 2008 and surveyed corresponding authors regarding the nature of the informed consent and the process of participant inclusion. We identified 173 reports and obtained an answer from 113 authors (65.3%). In total, 23.7% of the reports lacked information on ethics committee approval or participant consent, 53.1% of authors declared that participant consent was for data collection only and 58.5% that the group allocation was not specified for participants. The process of recruitment (chronology of participant recruitment with regard to cluster randomization) was rarely reported, and we estimated that only 56.6% of the trials were free of potential selection bias.

Conclusions

For CRTs, the reporting of ethics committee approval and participant informed consent is less than optimal. Reports should describe whether participants consented for administration of an intervention and/or data collection. Finally, the process of participant recruitment should be fully described (namely, whether participants were informed of the allocation group before being recruited) for a better appraisal of the risk of selection bias.     

A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of repeated cross-sectional cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes

Repeated cross-sectional cluster randomization trials are cluster randomization trials in which the response variable is measured on a sample of subjects from each cluster at baseline and on a different sample of subjects from each cluster at follow-up. One can estimate the effect of the intervention on the follow-up response alone, on the follow-up responses after adjusting for baseline responses, or on the change in the follow-up response from the baseline response. We used Monte Carlo simulations to determine the relative statistical power of different methods of analysis. We examined methods of analysis based on generalized estimating equations (GEE) and a random effects model to account for within-cluster homogeneity. We also examined cluster-level analyses that treated the cluster as the unit of analysis. We found that the use of random effects models to estimate the effect of the intervention on the change in the follow-up response from the baseline response had lower statistical power compared to the other competing methods across a wide range of scenarios. The other methods tended to have similar statistical power in many settings. However, in some scenarios, those analyses that adjusted for the baseline response tended to have marginally greater power than did methods that did not account for the baseline response.     

Allocation techniques for balance at baseline in cluster randomized trials: a methodological review

ABSTRACT: Reviews have repeatedly noted important methodological issues in the conduct and reporting of cluster randomized trials (C-RCTs). These reviews usually focus on whether the intra-cluster correlation was explicitly considered in the design and analysis of the C-RCT. However, another important aspect requiring special attention in C-RCTs is the risk for imbalance of covariates at baseline. Imbalance of important covariates at baseline decreases statistical power and precision of the results. Imbalance also reduces face validity and credibility of the trial results. The risk of imbalance is elevated in C-RCTs compared to trials randomizing individuals because of the difficulties in recruiting clusters and the nested nature of correlated patient-level data. A variety of restricted randomization methods have been proposed as way to minimise risk of imbalance. However, there is little guidance regarding how to best restrict randomization for any given C-RCT. The advantages and limitations of different allocation techniques, including stratification, matching, minimization, and covariate-constrained randomization are reviewed as they pertain to C-RCTs to provide investigators with guidance for choosing the best allocation technique for their trial.     

Influence of cluster-period cells in stepped wedge cluster randomized trials

Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SWCRT) are increasingly used for the evaluation of complex interventions in health services research. They randomly allocate treatments to clusters that switch to intervention under investigation at variable time points without returning to control condition. The resulting unbalanced allocation over time periods and the uncertainty about the underlying correlation structures at cluster-level renders designing and analyzing SWCRTs a challenge. Adjusting for time trends is recommended, appropriate parameterizations depend on the particular context. For sample size calculation, the covariance structure and covariance parameters are usually assumed to be known. These assumptions greatly affect the influence single cluster-period cells have on the effect estimate. Thus, it is important to understand how cluster-period cells contribute to the treatment effect estimate. We therefore discuss two measures of cell influence. These are functions of the design characteristics and covariance structure only and can thus be calculated at the planning stage: the coefficient matrix as discussed by Matthews and Forbes and information content (IC) as introduced by Kasza and Forbes. The main result is a new formula for IC that is more general and computationally more efficient. The formula applies to any generalized least squares estimator, especially for any type of time trend adjustment or nonblock diagonal matrices. We further show a functional relationship between IC and the coefficient matrix. We give two examples that tie in with current literature. All discussed tools and methods are implemented in the R package SteppedPower .     

Quantifying the impact of fixed effects modeling of clusters in multiple imputation for cluster randomized trials

In cluster randomized trials (CRTs), identifiable clusters rather than individuals are randomized to study groups. Resulting data often consist of a small number of clusters with correlated observations within a treatment group. Missing data often present a problem in the analysis of such trials, and multiple imputation (MI) has been used to create complete data sets, enabling subsequent analysis with well-established analysis methods for CRTs. We discuss strategies for accounting for clustering when multiply imputing a missing continuous outcome, focusing on estimation of the variance of group means as used in an adjusted t-test or ANOVA. These analysis procedures are congenial to (can be derived from) a mixed effects imputation model; however, this imputation procedure is not yet available in commercial statistical software. An alternative approach that is readily available and has been used in recent studies is to include fixed effects for cluster, but the impact of using this convenient method has not been studied. We show that under this imputation model the MI variance estimator is positively biased and that smaller intraclass correlations (ICCs) lead to larger overestimation of the MI variance. Analytical expressions for the bias of the variance estimator are derived in the case of data missing completely at random, and cases in which data are missing at random are illustrated through simulation. Finally, various imputation methods are applied to data from the Detroit Middle School Asthma Project, a recent school-based CRT, and differences in inference are compared.     

Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation procedures for stepped‐wedge cluster randomized trials

The ability to accurately estimate the sample size required by a stepped‐wedge (SW) cluster randomized trial (CRT) routinely depends upon the specification of several nuisance parameters. If these parameters are misspecified, the trial could be overpowered, leading to increased cost, or underpowered, enhancing the likelihood of a false negative. We address this issue here for cross‐sectional SW‐CRTs, analyzed with a particular linear‐mixed model, by proposing methods for blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation (SSRE). First, blinded estimators for the variance parameters of a SW‐CRT analyzed using the Hussey and Hughes model are derived. Following this, procedures for blinded and unblinded SSRE after any time period in a SW‐CRT are detailed. The performance of these procedures is then examined and contrasted using two example trial design scenarios. We find that if the two key variance parameters were underspecified by 50%, the SSRE procedures were able to increase power over the conventional SW‐CRT design by up to 41%, resulting in an empirical power above the desired level. Thus, though there are practical issues to consider, the performance of the procedures means researchers should consider incorporating SSRE in to future SW‐CRTs.     

Analysis of covariance with pre-treatment measurements in randomized trials under the cases that covariances and post-treatment variances differ between groups

When primary endpoints of randomized trials are continuous variables, the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with pre-treatment measurements as a covariate is often used to compare two treatment groups. In the ANCOVA, equal slopes (coefficients of pre-treatment measurements) and equal residual variances are commonly assumed. However, random allocation guarantees only equal variances of pre-treatment measurements. Unequal covariances and variances of post-treatment measurements indicate unequal slopes and, usually, unequal residual variances. For non-normal data with unequal covariances and variances of post-treatment measurements, it is known that the ANCOVA with equal slopes and equal variances using an ordinary least-squares method provides an asymptotically normal estimator for the treatment effect. However, the asymptotic variance of the estimator differs from the variance estimated from a standard formula, and its property is unclear. Furthermore, the asymptotic properties of the ANCOVA with equal slopes and unequal variances using a generalized least-squares method are unclear. In this paper, we consider non-normal data with unequal covariances and variances of post-treatment measurements, and examine the asymptotic properties of the ANCOVA with equal slopes using the variance estimated from a standard formula. Analytically, we show that the actual type I error rate, thus the coverage, of the ANCOVA with equal variances is asymptotically at a nominal level under equal sample sizes. That of the ANCOVA with unequal variances using a generalized least-squares method is asymptotically at a nominal level, even under unequal sample sizes. In conclusion, the ANCOVA with equal slopes can be asymptotically justified under random allocation.     

A mixed model-based variance estimator for marginal model analyses of cluster randomized trials

Generalized estimating equations (GEE) are used in the analysis of cluster randomized trials (CRTs) because: 1) the resulting intervention effect estimate has the desired marginal or population-averaged interpretation, and 2) most statistical packages contain programs for GEE. However, GEE tends to underestimate the standard error of the intervention effect estimate in CRTs. In contrast, penalized quasi-likelihood (PQL) estimates the standard error of the intervention effect in CRTs much better than GEE but is used less frequently because: 1) it generates an intervention effect estimate with a conditional, or cluster-specific, interpretation, and 2) PQL is not a part of most statistical packages. We propose taking the variance estimator from PQL and re-expressing it as a sandwich-type estimator that could be easily incorporated into existing GEE packages, thereby making GEE useful for the analysis of CRTs. Using numerical examples and data from an actual CRT, we compare the performance of this variance estimator to others proposed in the literature, and we find that our variance estimator performs as well as or better than its competitors.     

Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period

The determination of the sample size required by a crossover trial typically depends on the specification of one or more variance components. Uncertainty about the value of these parameters at the design stage means that there is often a risk a trial may be under‐ or overpowered. For many study designs, this problem has been addressed by considering adaptive design methodology that allows for the re‐estimation of the required sample size during a trial. Here, we propose and compare several approaches for this in multitreatment crossover trials. Specifically, regulators favor reestimation procedures to maintain the blinding of the treatment allocations. We therefore develop blinded estimators for the within and between person variances, following simple or block randomization. We demonstrate that, provided an equal number of patients are allocated to sequences that are balanced for period, the proposed estimators following block randomization are unbiased. We further provide a formula for the bias of the estimators following simple randomization. The performance of these procedures, along with that of an unblinded approach, is then examined utilizing three motivating examples, including one based on a recently completed four‐treatment four‐period crossover trial. Simulation results show that the performance of the proposed blinded procedures is in many cases similar to that of the unblinded approach, and thus they are an attractive alternative.     

Applying randomization tests to cluster analyses

Abstract. In applying randomization tests to hierarchical cluster analyses, we have noted a potentially misleading result: within a significant group, linkages are often identified as significant even when species are randomly distributed among the group's sites. We demonstrate this through a cluster analysis of a constructed matrix with two groups of 20 sites that share no species, and within each group species are randomly distributed among sites. A randomization test identified both of the groups and all linkages within them as significant, while the same test found all linkages non‐significant in the cluster analysis of a matrix containing just one of the two groups of 20 sites. In general, a non‐random distribution of species within a data set shortens linkages relative to distances in null distributions derived from randomized versions of the data. This confounds efforts to identify significant sub‐groups within a significant group. However, the significance of sub‐groups possibly could be tested by comparing linkage distances to a null distribution derived from the randomization and clustering of a sub‐matrix containing only the sites within the larger group. In essence, this comparison tests the null hypothesis that within the significant group, sites represent random assemblages of species. When applied to actual data sets, an approach involving sequential randomization tests could allow the evaluation of all nodes in a classification, increasing the utility of randomization tests and strengthening the interpretation of groups produced by cluster analysis.     

Assessing exposure-time treatment effect heterogeneity in stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials

A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (CRT) is a unidirectional crossover study in which timings of treatment initiation for clusters are randomized. Because the timing of treatment initiation is different for each cluster, an emerging question is whether the treatment effect depends on the exposure time, namely, the time duration since the initiation of treatment. Existing approaches for assessing exposure-time treatment effect heterogeneity either assume a parametric functional form of exposure time or model the exposure time as a categorical variable, in which case the number of parameters increases with the number of exposure-time periods, leading to a potential loss in efficiency. In this article, we propose a new model formulation for assessing treatment effect heterogeneity over exposure time. Rather than a categorical term for each level of exposure time, the proposed model includes a random effect to represent varying treatment effects by exposure time. This allows for pooling information across exposure-time periods and may result in more precise average and exposure-time-specific treatment effect estimates. In addition, we develop an accompanying permutation test for the variance component of the heterogeneous treatment effect parameters. We conduct simulation studies to compare the proposed model and permutation test to alternative methods to elucidate their finite-sample operating characteristics, and to generate practical guidance on model choices for assessing exposure-time treatment effect heterogeneity in stepped-wedge CRTs.