4.5 Article

Small sample performance of bias-corrected sandwich estimators for cluster-randomized trials with binary outcomes

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 281-296

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6344

关键词

generalized estimating equations (GEE); correlated data; type I error rates; power; sample size

资金

  1. NIH [T32HL079888, P60AR048095, UL1TR000165, P60AR064172]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sandwich estimator in generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach underestimates the true variance in small samples and consequently results in inflated type I error rates in hypothesis testing. This fact limits the application of the GEE in cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) with few clusters. Under various CRT scenarios with correlated binary outcomes, we evaluate the small sample properties of the GEE Wald tests using bias-corrected sandwich estimators. Our results suggest that the GEE Wald z-test should be avoided in the analyses of CRTs with few clusters even when bias-corrected sandwich estimators are used. With t-distribution approximation, the Kauermann and Carroll (KC)-correction can keep the test size to nominal levels even when the number of clusters is as low as 10 and is robust to the moderate variation of the cluster sizes. However, in cases with large variations in cluster sizes, the Fay and Graubard (FG)-correction should be used instead. Furthermore, we derive a formula to calculate the power and minimum total number of clusters one needs using the t-test and KC-correction for the CRTs with binary outcomes. The power levels as predicted by the proposed formula agree well with the empirical powers from the simulations. The proposed methods are illustrated using real CRT data. We conclude that with appropriate control of type I error rates under small sample sizes, we recommend the use of GEE approach in CRTs with binary outcomes because of fewer assumptions and robustness to the misspecification of the covariance structure. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据