Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16422308

Group sequential methods for cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes.

Guang Yong Zou·Allan Donner·Neil Klar
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomization trials in which intact social units are randomly assigned to different intervention groups have become very popular in recent years, particularly for the evaluation of innovations in the delivery of health care. An extensive literature dealing with the associated methodological challenges has also appeared. Although the monitoring of such trials using formal stopping rules is clearly indicated when the outcomes are irreversible and individual-level data are available sequentially, simple and reliable statistical methods that may be used for this purpose are currently not available. PURPOSE: To investigate the validity of standard group sequential methods when applied to cluster randomization trials having binary outcomes. METHODS: The large sample distributions for each of five test statistics computed from sequentially accumulated data are derived. A simulation study is performed to evaluate the finite sample properties of these statistics when applied to the interim analysis of cluster randomization trials. Data from the World Health Organization antenatal care trial are used to illustrate the methods. RESULTS: Each of the joint distributions is shown to be characterized by a covariance structure that asymptotically satisfies an independent increments structure, a foundation that simplifies group sequential methods. The simulation study reveals that four of the five test statistics evaluated provide satisfactory performance with as few as 10 clusters allocated to each of two interventions. LIMITATIONS: The applicability of our results to effect estimation following a group sequential cluster randomization trial is not investigated, although a theoretical foundation which may be used for this purpose is presented. CONCLUSIONS: Standard group sequential methods can be applied to cluster randomization trials when interim analyses are warranted.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansPregnancyPrenatal CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSample SizeStatistics as TopicWorld Health OrganizationJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Guang Yong Zou, Allan Donner, Neil Klar. 2005. Group sequential methods for cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes.. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn126oa

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

A comparison of adaptive allocation rules for group-sequential binary response clinical trials.

In clinical trials to compare two or more treatments with dichotomous responses, group-sequential designs may reduce the total number of patients involved in the trial and response-adaptive designs may result in fewer patients being assigned to the inferior treatments. In this paper, we combine group-sequential and response-adaptive designs, extending recent work on sample size re-estimation in trials to compare two treatments with normally distributed responses, to analogous binary response trials. We consider the use of two parameters of interest in the group-sequential design, the log odds ratio and the simple difference between the probabilities of success. In terms of the adaptive sampling rules, we study two urn models, the drop-the-loser rule and the randomized Pólya urn rule, and compare their properties with those of two sequential maximum likelihood estimation rules, which minimize the expected number of treatment failures. We investigate two ways in which adaptive urn designs can be used in conjunction with group-sequential designs. The first method updates the urn at each interim analysis and the second method continually updates the urn after each patient response, assuming immediate patient responses. Our simulation results show that the group-sequential design, which uses the drop-the-loser rule, applied fully sequentially, is the most effective method for reducing the expected number of treatment failures and the average sample number, whilst still maintaining the nominal error rates, over a range of success probabilities.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

Performance of adaptive sample size adjustment with respect to stopping criteria and time of interim analysis.

The benefit of adjusting the sample size in clinical trials on the basis of treatment effects observed in interim analysis has been the subject of several recent papers. Different conclusions were drawn about the usefulness of this approach for gaining power or saving sample size, because of differences in trial design and setting. We examined the benefit of sample size adjustment in relation to trial design parameters such as 'time of interim analysis' and 'choice of stopping criteria'. We compared the adaptive weighted inverse normal method with classical group sequential methods for the most common and for optimal stopping criteria in early, half-time and late interim analyses. We found that reacting to interim data might significantly reduce average sample size in some situations, while classical approaches can out-perform the adaptive designs under other circumstances. We characterized these situations with respect to time of interim analysis and choice of stopping criteria.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗