4.5 Article

Analysis of cluster randomized cross-over trial data: A comparison of methods

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 274-289

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2537

关键词

cluster randomized trials; cross-over design; hierarchical models; cluster-level methods

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U105260558] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U105260558] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MC_U105260558] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a cluster randomized cross-over trial, all participating clusters receive both intervention and control treatments consecutively, in separate time periods. Patients recruited by each cluster within the same time period receive the same intervention, and randomization determines order of treatment within a cluster. Such a design has been used on a number of occasions. For analysis of the trial data, the approach of analysing cluster-level summary measures is appealing on the grounds of simplicity, while hierarchical modelling allows for the correlation of patients within periods within clusters and offers flexibility in the model assumptions. We consider several cluster-level approaches and hierarchical models and make comparison in terms of empirical precision, coverage, and practical considerations. The motivation for a cluster randomized trial to employ cross-over of trial arms is particularly strong when the number of clusters available is small, so we examine performance of the methods under small, medium and large (6, 18, 30) numbers of clusters. One hierarchical model and two cluster-level methods were found to perform consistently well across the designs considered. These three methods are efficient, provide appropriate standard errors and coverage, and continue to perform well when incorporating adjustment for an individual-level covariate. We conclude that choice between hierarchical models and cluster-level methods should be influenced by the extent of complexity in the planned analysis. Copyright (c) 2006 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