The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-58) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
BK devised the study, performed the simulations, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. TM input into the manuscript. Both authors had final approval for the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Recent reviews have shown that while clustering is extremely common in individually randomised trials (for example, clustering within centre, therapist, or surgeon), it is rarely accounted for in the trial analysis. Our aim is to develop a general framework for assessing whether potential sources of clustering must be accounted for in the trial analysis to obtain valid type I error rates (non-ignorable clustering), with a particular focus on individually randomised trials.
A general framework for assessing clustering is developed based on theoretical results and a case study of a recently published trial is used to illustrate the concepts. A simulation study is used to explore the impact of not accounting for non-ignorable clustering in practice.
Clustering is non-ignorable when there is both correlation between patient outcomes within clusters, and correlation between treatment assignments within clusters. This occurs when the intraclass correlation coefficient is non-zero, and when the cluster has been used in the randomisation process (e.g. stratified blocks within centre) or when patients are assigned to clusters after randomisation with different probabilities (e.g. a surgery trial in which surgeons treat patients in only one arm). A case study of an individually randomised trial found multiple sources of clustering, including centre of recruitment, attending surgeon, and site of rehabilitation class. Simulations show that failure to account for non-ignorable clustering in trial analyses can lead to type I error rates over 20% in certain cases; conversely, adjusting for the clustering in the trial analysis gave correct type I error rates.
Clustering is common in individually randomised trials. Trialists should assess potential sources of clustering during the planning stages of a trial, and account for any sources of non-ignorable clustering in the trial analysis.
Authors’ original file for figure 112874_2013_935_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Authors’ original file for figure 212874_2013_935_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
Authors’ original file for figure 312874_2013_935_MOESM3_ESM.pdf
Authors’ original file for figure 412874_2013_935_MOESM4_ESM.pdf
Authors’ original file for figure 512874_2013_935_MOESM5_ESM.pdf
Liang KY, Zeger SL: Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986, 73: 13-22. 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13. CrossRef
Hayes RJ, Moulton LH: Cluster Randomised Trials. 2009, Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC CrossRef
Donner A, Klar N: Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. 2000, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Parzen M, Lipsitz SR, Dear KBG: Does clustering affect the usual test statistics of no treatment effect in a randomized clinical trial?. Biom J. 1998, 40: 385-402. 10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199808)40:4<385::AID-BIMJ385>3.0.CO;2-#. CrossRef
McGregor AH, Dore CJ, Morris TP, Morris S, Jamrozik K: ISSLS prize winner: function after spinal treatment, exercise, and rehabilitation (FASTER): a factorial randomized trial to determine whether the functional outcome of spinal surgery can be improved. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011, 36 (21): 1711-1720. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318214e3e6. CrossRef
International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group: ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999, 18: 1905-1942.
- Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials
Brennan C Kahan
Tim P Morris
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II