Cluster randomized trials

Over two years ago, I wrote a series of posts (starting here) that described possible analytic approaches for a proposed cluster-randomized trial with a factorial design. That proposal was recently funded by NIA/NIH, and now the Emergency departments leading the transformation of Alzheimer’s and dementia care (ED-LEAD) trial is just getting underway. Since the trial is in its early planning phase, I am starting to think about how we will do the randomization, and I’m sharing some of those thoughts (and code) here. [Read More]

Clinical Decision Support (CDS) tools are systems created to support clinical decision-making. Health care professionals using these tools can get guidance about diagnostic and treatment options when providing care to a patient. I’m currently involved with designing a trial focused on comparing a standard CDS tool with an enhanced version (CDS+). The main goal is to directly compare patient-level outcomes for those who have been exposed to the different versions of the CDS. [Read More]

A colleague reached out for help designing a cluster randomized trial to evaluate a clinical decision support tool for primary care physicians (PCPs), which aims to improve care for high-risk patients. The outcome will be a time-to-event measure, collected at the patient level. The unit of randomization will be the PCP, and one of the key design issues is settling on the number to randomize. [Read More]

In recent discussions with a number of collaborators at the NIA IMPACT Collaboratory about setting the sample size for a proposed cluster randomized trial, the question of variable cluster sizes has come up a number of times. Given a fixed overall sample size, it is generally better (in terms of statistical power) if the sample is equally distributed across the different clusters; highly variable cluster sizes increase the standard errors of effect size estimates and reduce the ability to determine if an intervention or treatment is effective. [Read More]

In a previous post, I described some ways one might go about analyzing data from a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial using a generalized additive model (a GAM), focusing on continuous outcomes. I have spent the past few weeks developing a similar model for a binary outcome, and have started to explore model comparison and methods to evaluate goodness-of-fit. The following describes some of my thought process. Data generation The data generation process I am using here follows along pretty closely with the earlier post, except, of course, the outcome has changed from continuous to binary. [Read More]

Recently I started a discussion about modeling secular trends using flexible models in the context of cluster randomized trials. I’ve been motivated by a trial I am involved with that is using a stepped-wedge study design. The initial post focused on more standard parallel designs; here, I want to extend the discussion explicitly to the stepped-wedge design. The stepped-wedge design Stepped-wedge designs are a special class of cluster randomized trial where each cluster is observed in both treatment arms (as opposed to the classic parallel design where only some of the clusters receive the treatment). [Read More]

A key challenge - maybe the key challenge - of a stepped wedge clinical trial design is the threat of confounding by time. This is a cross-over design where the unit of randomization is a group or cluster, where each cluster begins in the control state and transitions to the intervention. It is the transition point that is randomized. Since outcomes could be changing over time regardless of the intervention, it is important to model the time trends when conducting the efficacy analysis. [Read More]

In the previous post, I described an incipient effort that I am undertaking with two colleagues, Monica Taljaard and Fan Li, to better understand the implications for collecting baseline measurements on sample size requirements for stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. (The three of us are on the Design and Statistics Core of the NIA IMPACT Collaboratory.) In that post, I conducted a series of simulations that illustrated the design effects in parallel cluster randomized trials derived analytically in a paper by Teerenstra et al. [Read More]

Is it possible to reduce the sample size requirements of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial simply by collecting baseline information? In a trial with randomization at the individual level, it is generally the case that if we are able to measure an outcome for subjects at two time periods, first at baseline and then at follow-up, we can reduce the overall sample size. But does this extend to (a) cluster randomized trials generally, and to (b) stepped wedge designs more specifically? [Read More]