4.1 Article

A simulation based technique to estimate intracluster correlation for a binary variable

期刊

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 71-80

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.07.008

关键词

Intracluster correlation; ICC; Simulation; Binary variable; Cluster randomized trials

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [U01 HD40636, U01 HD043464-01]
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [U01HD040636] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cluster randomized trials have become the design of choice for evaluating the effect of selected interventions on well-known health indicators such as neonatal mortality rate, episiotomy rate, and postpartum hemorrhage rate in a community setting. Determining the sample size of a cluster randomized trial requires a reliable estimate of cluster size and the intracluster correlation (ICC), because sample size can be substantially impacted by these parameters. During the design phase of a trial, the investigators may have estimates of the valid range of the health indicator which is the primary outcome variable. Furthermore, investigators often have an estimate of the average cluster size or range of cluster sizes that exist among the proposed samples they are planning to include in the trial. We present in this article a simulation technique to estimate the ICC value and its distribution for known binary outcome variables and a varying number of clusters and cluster sizes. We applied this technique to estimate ICC values and confidence intervals for a multi-country trial assessing the effect of neonatal resuscitation to decrease seven-day neonatal mortality, where communities within a country were clusters. This simulation technique can be used to estimate the possible ranges of the ICC values and to help to design an appropriately powered trial. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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