Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Designing three-level cluster randomized trials to assess treatment effect heterogeneity

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          SUMMARY

          Cluster randomized trials often exhibit a three-level structure with participants nested in subclusters such as health care providers, and subclusters nested in clusters such as clinics. While the average treatment effect has been the primary focus in planning three-level randomized trials, interest is growing in understanding whether the treatment effect varies among prespecified patient subpopulations, such as those defined by demographics or baseline clinical characteristics. In this article, we derive novel analytical design formulas based on the asymptotic covariance matrix for powering confirmatory analyses of treatment effect heterogeneity in three-level trials, that are broadly applicable to the evaluation of cluster-level, subcluster-level, and participant-level effect modifiers and to designs where randomization can be carried out at any level. We characterize a nested exchangeable correlation structure for both the effect modifier and the outcome conditional on the effect modifier, and generate new insights from a study design perspective for conducting analyses of treatment effect heterogeneity based on a linear mixed analysis of covariance model. A simulation study is conducted to validate our new methods and two real-world trial examples are used for illustrations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test.

          Despite guidelines recommending the use of formal tests of interaction in subgroup analyses in clinical trials, inappropriate subgroup-specific analyses continue. Moreover, trials designed to detect overall treatment effects have limited power to detect treatment-subgroup interactions. This article quantifies the error rates associated with subgroup analyses. Simulations quantified the risks of misinterpreting subgroup analyses as evidence of differential subgroup effects and the limited power of the interaction test in trials designed to detect overall treatment effects. Although formal interaction tests performed as expected with respect to false positives, subgroup-specific tests were considerably less reliable: A significant effect in one subgroup only was observed in 7% to 64% of simulations depending on trial characteristics. Regarding power of the interaction test, a trial with 80% power for the overall effect had only 29% power to detect an interaction effect of the same magnitude. For interactions of this size to be detected with the same power as the overall effect, sample sizes should be inflated fourfold, increasing dramatically for interactions smaller than 20% of the overall effect. Although it is generally recognized that subgroup analyses can produce spurious results, the extent of the problem may be underestimated.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials.

              In group-randomized trials, a frequent practical limitation to adopting rigorous research designs is that only a small number of groups may be available, and therefore, simple randomization cannot be relied upon to balance key group-level prognostic factors across the comparison arms. Constrained randomization is an allocation technique proposed for ensuring balance and can be used together with a permutation test for randomization-based inference. However, several statistical issues have not been thoroughly studied when constrained randomization is considered. Therefore, we used simulations to evaluate key issues including the following: the impact of the choice of the candidate set size and the balance metric used to guide randomization; the choice of adjusted versus unadjusted analysis; and the use of model-based versus randomization-based tests. We conducted a simulation study to compare the type I error and power of the F-test and the permutation test in the presence of group-level potential confounders. Our results indicate that the adjusted F-test and the permutation test perform similarly and slightly better for constrained randomization relative to simple randomization in terms of power, and the candidate set size does not substantially affect their power. Under constrained randomization, however, the unadjusted F-test is conservative, while the unadjusted permutation test carries the desired type I error rate as long as the candidate set size is not too small; the unadjusted permutation test is consistently more powerful than the unadjusted F-test and gains power as candidate set size changes. Finally, we caution against the inappropriate specification of permutation distribution under constrained randomization. An ongoing group-randomized trial is used as an illustrative example for the constrained randomization design.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Biostatistics
                Biostatistics
                biosts
                Biostatistics (Oxford, England)
                Oxford University Press
                1465-4644
                1468-4357
                October 2023
                21 July 2022
                21 July 2022
                : 24
                : 4
                : 833-849
                Affiliations
                Department of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Public Health , New Haven, CT 06510, USA
                Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mississippi State University , MS 39762, USA
                Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Public Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University , Hershey, PA 17033, USA
                Department of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Public Health , New Haven, CT 06510, USA
                Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington , Seattle, WA 98195, USA
                Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA and Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA 02215, USA
                Author notes
                To whom correspondence should be addressed. fan.f.li@ 123456yale.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6183-1893
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6127-9602
                Article
                kxac026
                10.1093/biostatistics/kxac026
                10583727
                35861621
                4ab2c985-bc1d-4853-b531-a93cb4f2479f
                © The Author 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 February 2022
                : 09 June 2022
                : 27 June 2022
                Page count
                Pages: 17
                Funding
                Funded by: Yale Clinical and Translational Science;
                Award ID: UL1TR001863
                Categories
                Article
                AcademicSubjects/SCI01530

                Biostatistics
                design effect,effect modification,heterogeneous treatment effect,intraclass correlation coefficient,nested exchangeable correlation structure,power calculation

                Comments

                Comment on this article