对楔形聚类随机试验设计和分析的关键建议的依从性:2016-2022年发表的试验综述

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-21 DOI:10.1177/17407745231208397
Pascale Nevins, Mary Ryan, Kendra Davis-Plourde, Yongdong Ouyang, Jules Antoine Pereira Macedo, Can Meng, Guangyu Tong, Xueqi Wang, Luis Ortiz-Reyes, Agnès Caille, Fan Li, Monica Taljaard
{"title":"对楔形聚类随机试验设计和分析的关键建议的依从性:2016-2022年发表的试验综述","authors":"Pascale Nevins, Mary Ryan, Kendra Davis-Plourde, Yongdong Ouyang, Jules Antoine Pereira Macedo, Can Meng, Guangyu Tong, Xueqi Wang, Luis Ortiz-Reyes, Agnès Caille, Fan Li, Monica Taljaard","doi":"10.1177/17407745231208397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>The stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT), in which clusters are randomized to a time at which they will transition to the intervention condition - rather than a trial arm - is a relatively new design. SW-CRTs have additional design and analytical considerations compared to conventional parallel arm trials. To inform future methodological development, including guidance for trialists and the selection of parameters for statistical simulation studies, we conducted a review of recently published SW-CRTs. Specific objectives were to describe (1) the types of designs used in practice, (2) adherence to key requirements for statistical analysis, and (3) practices around covariate adjustment. We also examined changes in adherence over time and by journal impact factor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used electronic searches to identify primary reports of SW-CRTs published 2016-2022. Two reviewers extracted information from each trial report and its protocol, if available, and resolved disagreements through discussion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 160 eligible trials, randomizing a median (Q1-Q3) of 11 (8-18) clusters to 5 (4-7) sequences. The majority (122, 76%) were cross-sectional (almost all with continuous recruitment), 23 (14%) were closed cohorts and 15 (9%) open cohorts. Many trials had complex design features such as multiple or multivariate primary outcomes (50, 31%) or time-dependent repeated measures (27, 22%). The most common type of primary outcome was binary (51%); continuous outcomes were less common (26%). The most frequently used method of analysis was a generalized linear mixed model (112, 70%); generalized estimating equations were used less frequently (12, 8%). Among 142 trials with fewer than 40 clusters, only 9 (6%) reported using methods appropriate for a small number of clusters. Statistical analyses clearly adjusted for time effects in 119 (74%), for within-cluster correlations in 132 (83%), and for distinct between-period correlations in 13 (8%). Covariates were included in the primary analysis of the primary outcome in 82 (51%) and were most often individual-level covariates; however, clear and complete pre-specification of covariates was uncommon. Adherence to some key methodological requirements (adjusting for time effects, accounting for within-period correlation) was higher among trials published in higher versus lower impact factor journals. Substantial improvements over time were not observed although a slight improvement was observed in the proportion accounting for a distinct between-period correlation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Future methods development should prioritize methods for SW-CRTs with binary or time-to-event outcomes, small numbers of clusters, continuous recruitment designs, multivariate outcomes, or time-dependent repeated measures. Trialists, journal editors, and peer reviewers should be aware that SW-CRTs have additional methodological requirements over parallel arm designs including the need to account for period effects as well as complex intracluster correlations.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"199-210"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11003836/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adherence to key recommendations for design and analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: A review of trials published 2016-2022.\",\"authors\":\"Pascale Nevins, Mary Ryan, Kendra Davis-Plourde, Yongdong Ouyang, Jules Antoine Pereira Macedo, Can Meng, Guangyu Tong, Xueqi Wang, Luis Ortiz-Reyes, Agnès Caille, Fan Li, Monica Taljaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17407745231208397\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>The stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT), in which clusters are randomized to a time at which they will transition to the intervention condition - rather than a trial arm - is a relatively new design. SW-CRTs have additional design and analytical considerations compared to conventional parallel arm trials. To inform future methodological development, including guidance for trialists and the selection of parameters for statistical simulation studies, we conducted a review of recently published SW-CRTs. Specific objectives were to describe (1) the types of designs used in practice, (2) adherence to key requirements for statistical analysis, and (3) practices around covariate adjustment. We also examined changes in adherence over time and by journal impact factor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used electronic searches to identify primary reports of SW-CRTs published 2016-2022. Two reviewers extracted information from each trial report and its protocol, if available, and resolved disagreements through discussion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 160 eligible trials, randomizing a median (Q1-Q3) of 11 (8-18) clusters to 5 (4-7) sequences. The majority (122, 76%) were cross-sectional (almost all with continuous recruitment), 23 (14%) were closed cohorts and 15 (9%) open cohorts. Many trials had complex design features such as multiple or multivariate primary outcomes (50, 31%) or time-dependent repeated measures (27, 22%). The most common type of primary outcome was binary (51%); continuous outcomes were less common (26%). The most frequently used method of analysis was a generalized linear mixed model (112, 70%); generalized estimating equations were used less frequently (12, 8%). Among 142 trials with fewer than 40 clusters, only 9 (6%) reported using methods appropriate for a small number of clusters. Statistical analyses clearly adjusted for time effects in 119 (74%), for within-cluster correlations in 132 (83%), and for distinct between-period correlations in 13 (8%). Covariates were included in the primary analysis of the primary outcome in 82 (51%) and were most often individual-level covariates; however, clear and complete pre-specification of covariates was uncommon. Adherence to some key methodological requirements (adjusting for time effects, accounting for within-period correlation) was higher among trials published in higher versus lower impact factor journals. Substantial improvements over time were not observed although a slight improvement was observed in the proportion accounting for a distinct between-period correlation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Future methods development should prioritize methods for SW-CRTs with binary or time-to-event outcomes, small numbers of clusters, continuous recruitment designs, multivariate outcomes, or time-dependent repeated measures. Trialists, journal editors, and peer reviewers should be aware that SW-CRTs have additional methodological requirements over parallel arm designs including the need to account for period effects as well as complex intracluster correlations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"199-210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11003836/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231208397\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231208397","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:楔形分组随机试验(SW-CRT)是一种相对较新的设计,其中分组随机分配到他们将过渡到干预条件的时间-而不是试验组。与传统的平行对照试验相比,sw - crt有更多的设计和分析考虑。为了指导未来的方法学发展,包括对试验人员的指导和统计模拟研究参数的选择,我们对最近发表的sw - crt进行了回顾。具体目标是描述(1)实践中使用的设计类型,(2)遵守统计分析的关键要求,以及(3)围绕协变量调整的实践。我们还通过期刊影响因子检查了依从性随时间的变化。方法:我们使用电子检索来识别2016-2022年发表的sw - crt的主要报告。两名审稿人从每份试验报告及其方案(如果有)中提取信息,并通过讨论解决分歧。结果:我们确定了160个符合条件的试验,将11个(8-18)组的中位数(Q1-Q3)随机分配到5个(4-7)序列。大多数(122,76%)是横断面的(几乎都是持续招募的),23个(14%)是封闭队列,15个(9%)是开放队列。许多试验具有复杂的设计特征,如多重或多变量主要结果(50.31%)或时间依赖性重复测量(27.22%)。最常见的主要结局类型为二元(51%);持续结果较少见(26%)。最常用的分析方法是广义线性混合模型(112,70%);广义估计方程的使用频率较低(12.8%)。在少于40个聚类的142个试验中,只有9个(6%)报告使用了适用于少数聚类的方法。统计分析清楚地调整了119例(74%)的时间效应,132例(83%)的集群内相关性,13例(8%)的不同时期相关性。在82例(51%)的主要结局的主要分析中纳入了协变量,并且最常见的是个体水平的协变量;然而,明确和完整的协变量预规范是罕见的。在高影响因子期刊上发表的试验与低影响因子期刊发表的试验相比,对一些关键方法要求(调整时间效应,考虑期内相关性)的依从性更高。随着时间的推移,没有观察到实质性的改善,尽管在占不同时期相关性的比例中观察到轻微的改善。结论:未来的方法开发应优先考虑具有二元或时间-事件结果、少量聚类、连续招募设计、多变量结果或时间依赖性重复测量的sw - crt方法。试验人员、期刊编辑和同行审稿人应该意识到,sw - crt比平行组设计有额外的方法学要求,包括需要考虑周期效应和复杂的集群内相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Adherence to key recommendations for design and analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: A review of trials published 2016-2022.

Background/aims: The stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT), in which clusters are randomized to a time at which they will transition to the intervention condition - rather than a trial arm - is a relatively new design. SW-CRTs have additional design and analytical considerations compared to conventional parallel arm trials. To inform future methodological development, including guidance for trialists and the selection of parameters for statistical simulation studies, we conducted a review of recently published SW-CRTs. Specific objectives were to describe (1) the types of designs used in practice, (2) adherence to key requirements for statistical analysis, and (3) practices around covariate adjustment. We also examined changes in adherence over time and by journal impact factor.

Methods: We used electronic searches to identify primary reports of SW-CRTs published 2016-2022. Two reviewers extracted information from each trial report and its protocol, if available, and resolved disagreements through discussion.

Results: We identified 160 eligible trials, randomizing a median (Q1-Q3) of 11 (8-18) clusters to 5 (4-7) sequences. The majority (122, 76%) were cross-sectional (almost all with continuous recruitment), 23 (14%) were closed cohorts and 15 (9%) open cohorts. Many trials had complex design features such as multiple or multivariate primary outcomes (50, 31%) or time-dependent repeated measures (27, 22%). The most common type of primary outcome was binary (51%); continuous outcomes were less common (26%). The most frequently used method of analysis was a generalized linear mixed model (112, 70%); generalized estimating equations were used less frequently (12, 8%). Among 142 trials with fewer than 40 clusters, only 9 (6%) reported using methods appropriate for a small number of clusters. Statistical analyses clearly adjusted for time effects in 119 (74%), for within-cluster correlations in 132 (83%), and for distinct between-period correlations in 13 (8%). Covariates were included in the primary analysis of the primary outcome in 82 (51%) and were most often individual-level covariates; however, clear and complete pre-specification of covariates was uncommon. Adherence to some key methodological requirements (adjusting for time effects, accounting for within-period correlation) was higher among trials published in higher versus lower impact factor journals. Substantial improvements over time were not observed although a slight improvement was observed in the proportion accounting for a distinct between-period correlation.

Conclusions: Future methods development should prioritize methods for SW-CRTs with binary or time-to-event outcomes, small numbers of clusters, continuous recruitment designs, multivariate outcomes, or time-dependent repeated measures. Trialists, journal editors, and peer reviewers should be aware that SW-CRTs have additional methodological requirements over parallel arm designs including the need to account for period effects as well as complex intracluster correlations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in conducting efficacy trials for new COVID-19 vaccines in developed countries. Society for Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committee initiative website: Closing the gap. A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficient designs for three-sequence stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1