scholarly journals Cvcrand and Cptest: Commands for Efficient Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomized Trials Using Constrained Randomization and Permutation Tests

Author(s):  
John A. Gallis ◽  
Fan Li ◽  
Hengshi Yu ◽  
Elizabeth L. Turner

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs), where clusters (for example, schools or clinics) are randomized to comparison arms but measurements are taken on individuals, are commonly used to evaluate interventions in public health, education, and the social sciences. Because CRTs typically involve a small number of clusters (for example, fewer than 20), simple randomization frequently leads to baseline imbalance of cluster characteristics across study arms, threatening the internal validity of the trial. In CRTs with a small number of clusters, classic approaches to balancing baseline characteristics—such as matching and stratification—have several drawbacks, especially when the number of baseline characteristics the researcher desires to balance is large (Ivers et al., 2012, Trials 13: 120). An alternative design approach is covariate-constrained randomization, whereby a randomization scheme is randomly selected from a subset of all possible randomization schemes based on the value of a balancing criterion (Raab and Butcher, 2001, Statistics in Medicine 20: 351–365). Subsequently, a clustered permutation test can be used in the analysis, which provides increased power under constrained randomization compared with simple randomization (Li et al., 2016, Statistics in Medicine 35: 1565–1579). In this article, we describe covariate-constrained randomization and the permutation test for the design and analysis of CRTs and provide an example to demonstrate the use of our new commands cvcrand and cptest to implement constrained randomization and the permutation test.

Author(s):  
John A. Gallis ◽  
Fan Li ◽  
Elizabeth L. Turner

Cluster randomized trials, where clusters (for example, schools or clinics) are randomized to comparison arms but measurements are taken on individuals, are commonly used to evaluate interventions in public health, education, and the social sciences. Analysis is often conducted on individual-level outcomes, and such analysis methods must consider that outcomes for members of the same cluster tend to be more similar than outcomes for members of other clusters. A popular individual-level analysis technique is generalized estimating equations (GEE). However, it is common to randomize a small number of clusters (for example, 30 or fewer), and in this case, the GEE standard errors obtained from the sandwich variance estimator will be biased, leading to inflated type I errors. Some bias-corrected standard errors have been proposed and studied to account for this finite-sample bias, but none has yet been implemented in Stata. In this article, we describe several popular bias corrections to the robust sandwich variance. We then introduce our newly created command, xtgeebcv, which will allow Stata users to easily apply finite-sample corrections to standard errors obtained from GEE models. We then provide examples to demonstrate the use of xtgeebcv. Finally, we discuss suggestions about which finite-sample corrections to use in which situations and consider areas of future research that may improve xtgeebcv.


Methodology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 146-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirjam Moerbeek

With cluster randomized trials complete groups of subjects are randomized to treatment conditions. An important question might be whether and when the subjects experience a particular event, such as smoking initiation or recovery from disease. In the social sciences the timing of such events is often measured in discrete time by using time intervals. At the planning phase of a cluster randomized trial one should decide on the number of clusters and cluster size such that parameters are estimated accurately and sufficient power on the test on treatment effect is achieved. On basis of a simulation study it is concluded that regression coefficients are estimated more accurately than the variance of the random cluster effect. In addition, it is shown that power increases with cluster size and number of clusters, and that a sufficient power cannot always be achieved by using larger cluster sizes at a fixed number of clusters.


2016 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis L. Huang

Cluster randomized trials involving participants nested within intact treatment and control groups are commonly performed in various educational, psychological, and biomedical studies. However, recruiting and retaining intact groups present various practical, financial, and logistical challenges to evaluators and often, cluster randomized trials are performed with a low number of clusters (~20 groups). Although multilevel models are often used to analyze nested data, researchers may be concerned of potentially biased results due to having only a few groups under study. Cluster bootstrapping has been suggested as an alternative procedure when analyzing clustered data though it has seen very little use in educational and psychological studies. Using a Monte Carlo simulation that varied the number of clusters, average cluster size, and intraclass correlations, we compared standard errors using cluster bootstrapping with those derived using ordinary least squares regression and multilevel models. Results indicate that cluster bootstrapping, though more computationally demanding, can be used as an alternative procedure for the analysis of clustered data when treatment effects at the group level are of primary interest. Supplementary material showing how to perform cluster bootstrapped regressions using R is also provided.


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 1012-1012
Author(s):  
Clémence Leyrat ◽  
Katy E Morgan ◽  
Baptiste Leurent ◽  
Brennan C Kahan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document